DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. Y L BANKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 9.2.1996 passed by a learned Single Judge allowing Civil Writ Petition No. 1190 of 1985. As far as Respondent No.1 Shri Y.L. Banka is concerned, the appellant made a statement before the Division Bench of this Court in the present appeal on 4.5.2000 that no relief is being claimed against him. Therefore, the present appeal is confined to the relief granted to Respondent No.2 Shri M.L. Tikoo by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. It may also be mentioned that although initially the cause title of the present appeal showed the Lt. Governor of Delhi to be the appellant, later on an application by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), this Court by an order dated 2.2.2000 permitted the DDA to be transposed as the appellant. We heard Ms.Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for Respondent No.2. Nevertheless, we have considered the affidavits filed on his behalf.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent No.2 joined the appellant as Assistant Engineer on 1.3.1969 and was subsequently promoted as an Executive Engineer (EE) on 1.3.1977. For consideration for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (SE), a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC') was held on 29.6.1984. At that point of time there was one clear vacant post of SE and another became available on account of repatriation of one of the SEs. At this meeting, the eligible EEs, including the respondent No.2 herein, were considered and respondent No.2 was placed at serial No. 6 in the panel, subject to clearance by the vigilance. Against the two posts of SEs that were available, two officers namely Shri Amit Biswas (at Sl. No. 2 in the panel) and Shri M.Kuppuswamy (at Sl. No. 4 in the panel) were promoted on 30.8.1984. With this, the regular vacancies available in the post of SE were filled up. Two other officers namely Shri S.K.Garella and Shri H.C.Gupta who were at serial Nos. 3 and 5 in the panel respectively were promoted on current duty charge basis by an order dated 27.3.1985. The officer at serial No.1 (who was respondent No.1 herein) was not promoted since vigilance proceedings were pending against him. The admitted position is that this panel was valid only for one year.

(3.) On 14.10.1985, respondent No.2 was issued a charge sheet. The DPC which met again on 21.11.1985 considered the name of Respondent No.2. However, because of the pending disciplinary proceedings in respect of which a charge sheet had already been issued to Respondent No.2, the recommendation was kept in a sealed cover. This position continued during the meetings of the DPC on 11.3.1987 and 14.4.1987. The disciplinary proceedings consequent upon the charge sheet ended on 29.3.1988 with the respondent No.2 being awarded a penalty of censure. At its next meeting on 7.2.1989, the DPC did not recommend the promotion of respondent No.2. Ultimately at the meeting of the DPC on 28.11.1990, the case of respondent No.2 was recommended for promotion and he was promoted as SE on 27.12.1990.