BHASKARENDU DATTA MAJUMDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Director (Marketing), and for quashing of communication bearing No. 7/143/05-PESB dated 7th March, 2008, circulated by the respondents for the vacancy to the post of the Director (Marketing ).

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition are that: (a) the petitioner joined the State Trading Corporation (respondent no. 2) in the grade of Chief Marketing Manager on the 29th April, 1991. According to the petitioner he has, right from the day he joined, maintained an impeccable service record and was, therefore, given the responsibility of some very important assignments within the organization. According to the petitioner in October, 1994 one Sh. B. K. Chaturvedi joined respondent No. 2 as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD ). According to the petitioner the said Sh. B. K. Chaturvedi displayed an attitude of prejudice against the petitioner as well as against the earlier cmd, one Sh. S. C. Vaish. The petitioner states that, therefore, during the tenure of the new CMD three false and frivolous major penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioner apart from the CBI registering two FIRs. In January, 1996 based on the first case registered with the CBI the petitioner was placed under suspension and his name appeared in the 'agreed List". Disciplinary proceedings were launched against the petitioner. On the 28th October, 1999 the CBI filed a closure report before the concerned court and the concerned court closed the FIR lodged against the petitioner, since nothing adverse was found on detailed investigation. Consequently, in December, 1999 the respondent No. 2 as a sequel to the closure of the CBI case revoked the suspension of the petitioner and reinstated him in service. On the 15th June, 2001 a departmental order was passed exonerating the petitioner from a departmental enquiry. In July, 2003 the petitioner was also promoted as General Manager of respondent No. 2 on purely ad hoc basis. On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that another departmental order was passed on the 16th August, 2001 exonerating the petitioner from another departmental enquiry. However, on the 30th August, 2001 a memorandum was issued to find out as to whether the petitioner was involved in any administrative lapse. In March, 2004 the disciplinary authority exonerated the petitioner in the memorandum dated 30th August, 2001. In the meanwhile on the 15th April, 2004 another departmental order was passed exonerating the petitioner from a departmental enquiry. Thus, according to the petitioner all the departmental enquiries and criminal complaint cases were duly enquired into and investigated as per due process of law and on being found to be false accordingly ended with the petitioner being honourably acquitted of all of them. The petitioner further states that since the concerned court had closed the FIRs filed by the CBI in both the FIRs, thus, the name of the petitioner bearing in the 'agreed list' was deemed to have been deleted. On the 28th June, 2004 the petitioner was promoted as the Chief General Manager of the respondent No. 2.

(3.) MR. V. P. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner made twofold submissions. He firstly submitted that when the ACC makes appointments and intends to differ from the recommendations of the PESB, the former must record reasons for so differing and consequently that, even if those reasons need not be communicated to the officer concerned, the file relating to those reasons is subject to the scrutiny by the Court; when that decision is challenged. In this behalf it is relevant to point out that the records of the proceedings of ACC have been produced for the perusal of this court. In this regard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following two decisions: