UOI Vs. DULI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE impugned judgment and order dated 25.3.2009, OA No.580/2008 filed by the respondent Duli Chand has been allowed with a direction that the sealed cover containing the recommendation pertaining to the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner be opened and recommendation implemented. It has been held that the penalty order dated 2.5.2003 has to be given effect from said date.

(2.) VIDE order dated 2.5.2003 the Disciplinary Authority inflicted upon the respondent the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect which was quashed by the Tribunal when respondent filed OA No.1573/2003. Tribunal's order was upheld by the High Court but was reversed by the Supreme Court when CA No.2168/2006 was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 21.4.2006 and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was restored. It may be noted that before the penalty could be implemented, the respondent obtained a stay from the Tribunal and since the Tribunal quashed the penalty the same could not be implemented and the stage for implementation came only when the Supreme Court pronounced the verdict on 21.4.2006. Another relevant fact is that pending inquiry, since entitlement of the respondent to be considered for further promotion enured, at the DPC held, the recommendation pertaining to him was put in a sealed cover.

(3.) PERTAINING to the direction issued by the Tribunal that the sealed cover containing the recommendation pertaining to the respondent be opened, suffice would it be to state that the Tribunal has ignored the fact that respondent's name was kept in a sealed cover on account of a Disciplinary Proceeding pending against him and in which the respondent has been held guilty and thus the question of giving effect to the recommendations of the DPC does not arise in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1991 (4) SCC 109 UOI and Ors. vs. K.V.Janakiraman and Ors.