STATE OF M. P. Vs. SYED NASEEM ZAHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL leave granted. 1A. Syed Naseem Zahir (Syed) joined service in the Irrigation Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh as Assistant Engineer on August 26, 1953. He was promoted as Executive Engineer in 1962. He was further promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in April, 1978. In the year 1986 his name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer but neither he nor anyone junior to him was promoted. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on October 28, 1987 and considered his name for promotion. Since disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him, the recommendation of the DPC qua him was kept in "sealed cover". On April 15, 1988 he was served with a charge -sheet.

(2.) SYED filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on April 20, 1988 challenging the adoption of "sealed cover" procedure by the DPC and claimed that he was entitled to promotion specially when a person junior to him had been promoted. The writ petition was transferred to the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) which allowed the same by its judgment dated February 7, 1992 and directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to promote Syed to the post of Chief Engineer as per the position which existed in February, 1986 or in any case to act in accordance with the "sealed cover" recommendation of the DPC which met in the year 1987. This appeal by way of special leave is by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the Tribunal.

(3.) THE Tribunal allowed the application of Syed on the short ground that the Departmental Promotion Committee which met on October 28, 1987 acted illegally in adopting the "sealed cover" procedure. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 : AIR 1991 SC 2010, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that "the sealed cover" procedure could be adopted only after the date of issuance of charge -sheet, that being the date from which disciplinary proceedings could be taken to have been initiated. Since in this case, admittedly, on the date when the DPC met the charge -sheet had not been served on Syed, resort could not be had to the "sealed cover" procedure. The reasoning and the conclusion of the Tribunal are unexceptionable. The only question for our consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case specially in view of the events subsequent to the meeting of the DPC, it would be in the interest of justice to promote respondent Syed to the post of Chief Engineer.