N UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR S/O THANKAPPAN PILLAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is now working as an Assistant Development Officer challenges the refusal to promote him as per Ext.P1 by reason of adoption of sealed cover procedure in the year 2003 - 2004. THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition are that the petitioner who was working as a Field Officer under the fourth respondent at Ezhukone was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Development Officer in the year 2003. Though the 4th respondent convened a DPC on 11-11-2003 and the petitioner was considered the result with respect to the petitioner was placed in a sealed cover for the reason that some enquiry was going on against him regarding allegations of misconduct. However, there was no charge sheet issued to the petitioner nor was the petitioner put to notice of the said enquiry on 11-11-2003 when the DPC was convened and a sealed cover procedure was adopted with respect to the petitioner.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY on 16-12-2003, the petitioner was charge sheeted alleging misconduct against him. However by that time, Ext.P1 had taken effect and the third respondent who was junior to the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Development Officer.

(3.) EXT.P6 order passed by the first respondent specifically places reliance on certain office memoranda extracted in the said order. The first office memoranda referred to in EXT.P6 states that the recommendation of the DPC contained in the sealed cover could not be given effect due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. As noticed above, the proceedings have culminated in imposition of minor penalty which does not dis- entitle the petitioner from being considered for promotion. There was no reason why the sealed cover procedure adopted in 2003 should not have been given effect to immediately on the imposition of penalty. The other office memoranda and instructions referred to, state that, on imposition of the penalty, the officer would not be promoted to the higher post during the currency of the penalty. Here again, the penalty being only in the nature of censure there cannot be any period specified for the continuance of the same.