(1.) Result: Writ dismissed. Petitioner joined service under DDA on 29.11.1968 as Section Officer. On 16.8.1976, he was promoted as Assistant Director (Horticulture). Thereafter, on 20.5.1988, he was promoted as Deputy Director (Horticulture).
(2.) Based on the report of the Technical Examiner CVC, DDA issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 21.10.1993 pertaining to events of the year 1983 i.e. after about 10 years. Alleging that delay in enquiry was causing prejudice to the petitioner, he sought quashing of the charge-sheet by and under CW No.5024/94. Vide judgment and order dated ,15.10.1988, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was quashed. Appeal preferred by the DDA against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, being LPA No.60/ 99 was dismissed by the Division Bench on 15.2.1999. On 1.6.1998, DDA promoted one Sh.Randhir Singh as Director (Horticulture). Petitioner made a representation that he be promoted as Director (Horticulture) on the ground that Randhir Singh was Junior to him. Petitioner also alleged that the Departmental Promotion Committee took into account the pendency of the charge- sheet against him at the time when the DPC met and, therefore, the decision of the DPC stood vitiated in as much as it considered the pendency of the charge-sheet against the petitioner, which charge-sheet, as noted above came to be quashed by this court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the averments made in paras 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit contended that it is the case of the DDA that when the DPC met on 24.2.1998, while considering the name of the petitioner as well as Sh.Randhir Singh, the DPC made its recommendations on the basis of the ACRs, vigilance report and other rules governing promotion to the post of Director (Horticulture), and in view of the said statement made in the counter affidavit, directions have to be issued to the DDA to convene a review DPC as on 24,2.1998 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion by ignoring the charge-sheet which was issued to the petitioner and since quashed by this court.