N.S. CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY when the writ petition was filed, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 19.7.2007 issued by the respondent No.1, by which after holding the review Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as DPC for brevity) in terms of the directions given by this Court in a previous writ petition of the petitioner, it was communicated to the petitioner that he is not found fit for grant of promotion on the post of Chief Engineer in Public Works Department. Many facts were contended by the petitioner with respect to such a consideration and it was contended that earlier the petitioner was superseded in the matter of promotion, was required to approach the M.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of filing an Original Application, which was transmitted to this Court on account of closure of the Tribunal and, ultimately, was allowed by order dated 1.12.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.18757/2003 (O.A.No.88/2002). It is contended that the direction was issued to give effect to the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the petitioner on 30.10.2001. However, again improperly the claim of the petitioner was considered and he was found unfit for grant of promotion with retrospective effect. It is contended that since such a consideration was not rightly done, the petitioner would be entitled to grant of benefits. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, following reliefs are claimed by the petitioner :

(2.) CONTESTING the claim made by the petitioner, a return has been filed by the respondents and they have categorically stated that there were departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner when earlier a DPC meeting was convened in the year 2000. Therefore, the petitioner was not found fit for promotion. It is contended that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 20.5.1996. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.9.1997 which was culminated into minor punishment of withholding of one increment of pay without cumulative effect vide order dated 8.8.2001. Yet another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.9.1998 proposing a minor punishment which was subsequently culminated into punishment of censure vide order dated 25.1.2001. Because of these disciplinary proceedings, the recommendations made by the DPC were kept in the sealed cover. Since in two proceedings, the petitioner was already punished as referred to herein above, there was no question of opening the sealed cover and to act upon the recommendations of the DPC for promotion of the petitioner. It is contended that those who were found fit by the DPC were promoted. Because of these reasons, it cannot be said that the petitioner is illegally superseded. After passing of the orders by the Tribunal in the Original Application, in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered by the review DPC adopting the same criterias which were formulated by the DPC on 28.11.2000 and since the petitioner is not found fit for grant of promotion because of the aforesaid reasons, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner was again declared unfit and was not granted any promotion. It is, thus, contended that since lawful action is taken by the respondents in the matter of consideration of the case of the petitioner, no illegality is committed and, as such, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief claimed in the petition.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents though has not filed any additional return, but has submitted that because of the penalties the claim of the petitioner was not considered and situations as have been pointed out, after the orders passed by this Court, would be completely changed.