BAIJNATH PRASAD JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was filed in the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal as Original Application No.341/2000, which has come to this Court on transfer after closure of the Tribunal and is registered as Writ Petition.

(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner in the petition is that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him in which an order was passed imposing the penalty of withholding of one increment of pay without cumulative effect. Against such an order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, but the same was not decided expeditiously. During the currency of the punishment, a DPC meeting was held and juniors to the petitioner were promoted on the post of Deputy Ranger vide order dated 15.8.1987. The representation was made by the petitioner in reference to which it was intimated to him that since the punishment is continuing against the petitioner, he was not promoted on the post of Deputy Ranger as was not found fit for such promotion. Ultimately, the appeal of the petitioner was decided by the competent authority vide Annx.A/2 and an order was issued on 23.2.1999 reducing the punishment from withholding of increment without cumulative effect to Censure. According to the petitioner, it was necessary to review the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion, but since this was not done, after making of representation before the authority, the petitioner was required to approach the Tribunal. It is contended that as per the administrative instructions issued by the State Government, case of the petitioner was required to be considered for grant of 'Kramonnati' as he was stagnating only on one post, yet that benefit was also not extended. In view of these submissions, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs.-

(3.) In response to the claim made by the petitioner, a return has been filed by the respondents and it has been contended that in view of the combined seniority claim of the petitioner was to be considered, but since there was an order of punishment and even after consideration the petitioner was not found fit, he was superseded in the matter of promotion. It is categorically contended that there were two reasons of supersession of the petitioner; one his Annual Confidential Reports were not found upto the mark and the other ground is punishment, therefore, to say that only because the appeal was allowed in the year 1999, the claim of the petitioner was to be reviewed, is not correct. As far as the 'Kramonnati' is concerned, it is contended that as per entitlement the claim of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate order would be passed as per turn of petitioner.