ANIL KUMAR ANAND Vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ proceeding, impugns his alleged wrongful denial of promotion to Grade 'C' for the panel years 1994, 1995 and 1996, due to a penalty of reprimand, imposed in 1992. He seeks a direction for his promotion to Grade 'C' w.e.f January2, 1995 for the panel year 1994, with consequential benefits. Additionally, the petitioner has sought quashing of the enquiry proceeding held in the Master Plus case as well as the consequent penalty of reprimand imposed upon him.

(2.) The petitioner joined the respondent (hereafter "UTI") as a direct recruit in Grade 'A' on 05.09.1986 and earned his first promotion to Grade 'B', w.e.f. 01.01.1992. He is a law graduate and holds a diploma in Labour Laws, from the Indian law Institute, Delhi. The Petitioner belongs to one of the Scheduled Castes. He claims to have been always performing his duties diligently, and with loyalty, so that the Head Office of the UTI, in the letter dated 31/10/1995 praised his work. He claims to have achieved unparalleled success, and secured repeated encomiums from his superiors and even from investors.

(3.) The petitioner was placed under suspension for submission of a late application under Master Plus Scheme, on 10th April 1992. He claims that receiving late applications was always a well established practice and an unspoken norm in the UTI and hundreds of such late applications were accepted by it from several employees/Officers, in all the offices. He alleges to have obtained an express written permission for such late submission, which was accepted by respondents, against acknowledgments. The petitioner was charge sheeted for acts reflecting lack of honesty and integrity; the UTI instituted an enquiry and appointed an enquiry officer. It is alleged that the enquiry proceedings were replete with gross inconsistencies. After conclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. On this, a final order was issued on 24.11.1992, by the Chairman, imposing the penalty of 'reprimand' in terms of Rule 55 (1) (a) upon the petitioner. His appeal against the penalty, was rejected by the Chairman, being also the Chairman of the Executive Committee, for legally the untenable reason that the appeal did not bring out any new points or circumstances, for reconsideration.