ANIL KESHARWANI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in both the writ petitions being non-consideration for promotion, only on account of change of the nature of minor penalty imposed on him and on account of non-communication of Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to as ACRs for brevity) which are coming in his way, both the matters are heard together and are being decided by this common order. The petitioner a Deputy Director at the relevant time, in Madhya Pradesh Finance Service has approached this Court by way of filing first writ petition contending that he was superseded in the matter of grant of benefit of promotion on the post of Joint Director (Selection Grade) whereas juniors to him were given the said benefit by orders of the respondents. It is contended that earlier a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, after conducting the said enquiry a punishment of stoppage of two increments of pay without cumulative effect was imposed on him. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of penalty which was pending consideration before the competent appellate authority. However, in between the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting (hereinafter DPC for short) was convened and the said DPC considered the penalty and deferred the case of the petitioner saying that he was not to be promoted or granted benefit of the selection grade since the effect of the penalty was in operation. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner was decided by the competent appellate authority and the penalty of stoppage of two increments of pay was converted into a penalty of censure. It was necessary to review the case of promotion of the petitioner but the same was not done. The petitioner has tried to obtain the information with respect to such consideration under the Right to Information Act, 2005 but as such information was not made available, he was required to file writ petition. It is thus, contended by the petitioner that he was entitled to be granted benefit of promotion on the post of Joint Director (Selection Grade) with all the consequential benefit from the date, the said promotion was granted to his juniors.

(2.) Contesting the claim made by the petitioner return has been filed by the respondents and they have categorically contended that when the DPC was held on 24-11-2004, the order of punishment issued against the petitioner was in effect. This particular fact was recorded by the DPC and therefore, the case of the petitioner was deferred and was not considered. However, a subsequent DPC was held on 24-4-2006, in which, case of the petitioner was considered and as the petitioner was not fulfilling the benchmark criteria, he was not found fit for promotion and the orders accordingly were not issued in his respect promoting him on the post of Joint Director (Selection Grade). It is thus, contended that the entire claim made by the petitioner is misconceived and the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) By filing a rejoinder, the petitioner has disputed such a stand taken by the respondent and has contended that if at all there was an order of penalty, under the instructions of the General Administration Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, the claim of the petitioner was required to be considered and the recommendations were to be kept in the sealed cover. There was no question of differing the consideration of the case of the petitioner as was done by the DPC on 24-11-2004. It was further contended that the subsequent DPC was also not properly convened inasmuch as the ACR of the petitioner were coming in his way were taken into consideration though the same were not communicated to the petitioner. If at all the ACRs were coming in the way in the matter of promotion, such ACRs were required to be communicated to the petitioner and after deciding the representation made against such ACRs action was required to be taken by the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the various cases, it was contended that in such circumstances where there was no communication of ACRs, the same were liable to be ignored and previous years ACRs were to be taken into consideration. Thus, it is again contended that consideration done by the DPC was not just and proper, therefore, respondents were liable to be commanded to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the aforesaid post.