UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM SUKHPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the appellants and Mr. K Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner.

(2.) THIS intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.04.2012 passed in WP(C)(SH) No. 440/2010 filed by the respondent/writ petitioner wherein and where -under, the appellant No. 3 (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) was directed to take necessary steps to release arrear of pay of the respondent (writ petitioner) for the period w.e.f. 29.09.2007 onwards within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

(3.) THE respondent/writ petitioner was promoted to the rank of Second -in -Command in the month of October, 2004 and the respondent/writ petitioner was considered for promotion to the rank of Commandant by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') convened on 22.06.2007 and 10.04.2008 for the vacancy year 2007 -08 and 2008 -09 respectively. But the recommendations of the aforesaid DPC were kept in a "sealed cover" due to pending disciplinary proceedings against the respondent/writ petitioner. The said disciplinary proceeding was initiated vide Memorandum No. D -IX -11/2005 -CRC dated 18.05.2007 for the article of charge that "the respondent/writ petitioner posted in CTC -III while functioning as Deputy Commandant (Adm) at GC, CRPF, Lucknow (U/P) during recruitment of constable/GD 2003 -04 at GC, CRPF Lucknow committed neglect of duty/remission in the discharge of duty in his capacity in that, he issued appointment letters to wrongly selected candidates as per Board proceeding prepared by the Recruitment Board without checking correctness of the Board proceeding and cut off percentage marks for SC/ST candidate in contradiction to the instructions issued vide Directorate General letter No. R.II -15/2000 -Pers -II dated 09.09.2000, as a result, 23 unqualified candidates of SC/ST categories were issued offer of appointment letters erroneously. Thus, the respondent/writ petitioner failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and failed to detect the mistakes in the merit list submitted by the Board and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964".