UNION OF INDIA Vs. DOLY LOYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition by the petitioners is to the order/ judgment dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A No. 3716/2011, whereby the Tribunal had allowed the O.A by quashing order dated 15.09.2011 and directed the petitioners to open the sealed cover adopted in the case of the respondent in the matter of promotion to the post of Commissioner, Income Tax and awarded back wages with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.

(2.) Brief facts which are not disputed are that the respondent was appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 16.12.1987. Thereafter he was promoted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in December, 1991, July, 2001 and November, 2001. That on 31.05.2001 the CBI registered an FIR no. RC-1(A)/2001/CBI/ACU-VI/New Delhi, dated 31.05.2001, under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 13(2) & 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sanction to prosecute the respondent was accorded twice, one on 02.06.2006 and the other one on 25.09.2008. It appears that the first one was accorded by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereas the second one by and on behalf of the President of India. Since the respondent had attained eligibility for promotion to the post of Commissioner, Income Tax, his case was considered for promotion to the said grade. As the vigilance clearance was withheld in his case in view of para 2(iii) of DOP& T O.M dated 14.09.1992, the recommendations of the DTC were kept in sealed cover and he could not be promoted along with his batch mates.

(3.) The respondent filed O.A No. 08/2011 before the Tribunal, Gawahati Bench challenging the aforesaid actions of the petitioners. The Gawahati Bench disposed of the said O.A vide order dated 28.06.2011 and directed the petitioners herein, to consider the case of the respondent herein, in the light of the decision rendered by Supreme Court Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak,2007 SCC(L&S) 587 and directed the petitioners to pass a reasoned order within a period of two months. The petitioners accordingly considered the case of the respondent vide order dated 14.09.2011, in the light of the directions of the Gawahati Bench, of the Tribunal and by distinguishing the case of Sangram Keshari Nayak concluded that there is no case for opening the sealed cover.