M B GOSWAMI Vs. N T P C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ has challenged the order dated 6. 2. 2006 passed by the respondent by virtue of which the promotion granted to the petitioner from E-6 to E-7 level i. e. from Senior Manager to Deputy General manager vide order dated 25. 1. 2006 was withdrawn pending conclusion of disciplinary proceedings against him. The petitioner has also prayed that he be granted all consequential benefits also after quashing of the impugned order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as senior Manager in NTPC, the respondent herein. On 10. 10. 2005, the respondent contemplated to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. In December, 2005, the Corporate Promotion Committee (herein after referred as CPC)recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy general Manager. As a consequence of this recommendation, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy General Manager w. e. f. 1. 10. 2005 although the order was passed on 25. 1. 2006. On 6. 2. 2006 i. e. just after 13 days of passing of the promotion order, the petitioner was again reverted back to the post of Senior manager on the ground that the respondent had intended to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and he was promoted inadvertently. The charge sheet was admittedly given to the petitioner on 28. 9. 2006 after obtaining advice of the Vigilance Chief.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that once the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager, he ought not to have been reverted without issuance of show cause notice and in any case, at the time of issuance of the promotion order, there was no memorandum of charges given to him or pending against him. The memorandum of charges was given to him only on 28. 09. 2006 Therefore, in terms of Union of India Vs. K. V. Jankiraman's case (1991) 4 SCC 109, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy General Manager could not be denied to him. It was urged that it is only in cases where the charge sheet has been filed in Court against a party or memorandum of charges has been given to the delinquent employee with a view to hold the domestic inquiry that the DPC may follow sealed cover procedure. It is also alleged that para 7. 3. 1 of the promotion policy was also on the same lines.