UNION OF INDIA Vs. R.P. SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 4009/2011 as also against the order dated 03.01.2012 passed in MA 4/2012 in the said Original Application.

(2.) BY virtue of the impugned order dated 08.12.2011, the respondent?s Original Application was allowed and a direction was issued to the petitioners herein to issue a promotion order in respect of the respondent to the post of Higher Administrative Grade as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. It was also directed that the respondent would be entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority vis--vis his colleagues.

(3.) BEFORE we go on with the discussion and note the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, it would be appropriate to set out some facts. On 12.08.2010, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommended the promotion of the respondent and four others to Higher Administrative Grade from Senior Administrative Grade. On 07.10.2010, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) approved the same and placed the respondent at serial No. 5. It is an admitted position that on the dates on which the recommendation was made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and the approval was granted by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), there existed five vacancies and the respondent had been placed at serial No. 5. Subsequently, on 30.10.2010, a news report appeared in the Sunday Times (New Delhi Edition), wherein a special report on Adarsh Housing Society etc., was carried in which there was an allegation that some of the officers of Indian Defence Estate Services (IDES), who had been cleared for promotion to the rank of Additional Secretary, were facing serious allegations of financial misdeeds. Thereafter, on 13.11.2010, Mr Rajagopal, who was shown at serial No.1, was promoted pursuant to the aforesaid approval. On 26.11.2010, the Defence Minister in his note stated that the matter be examined. Thereafter, there is a note of the Ministry dated 16.12.2010 which indicates that the Minister?s directions had been carried out and the matter had been examined in consultation with the Director General of Defence Estates and the vigilance section of the Ministry and that both of them certified that there was no vigilance case pending against, inter alia, the respondent herein. The note also mentioned that DOPT?s subsequent OM dated 25.10.2004 reiterated the circumstances mentioned in Clause 2 of the OM dated 14.09.1992 and indicates that it clarifies that no promotion can be withheld merely on the basis of suspicion or doubt or where the matter is under preliminary investigation and has not reached the stage of issuance of charge sheet etc. A similar note was also prepared on 24.12.2010. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, it is an admitted position that there was no decision taken by the petitioners that any disciplinary proceedings were to be initiated against the respondent. It is in these circumstances that the impugned order dated 08.12.2011 and the subsequent order dated 03.01.2012 came to be passed. It is on the very next day, that is, on 04.01.2012 that, according to the petitioners, the competent authority decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.