JITENDRA KUMAR SAGAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made to an order Annexure P-8 dated 18-09-2012 by which claim made by the petitioner for grant of promotion retrospectively at par with respondent No. 2 has been rejected. Records indicate that the petitioner was working as Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central) in the department of respondent No. 1 and he was involved in a vigilance case, which ultimately led to his prosecution for certain offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act at the instance of the competent authority before the Special Court Pune. The Special Court, Pune vide judgment dated 19-03-2008 acquitted the petitioner of all the charges levelled against him. The prosecution filed an appeal against this acquittal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and on 14-01-2009 the acquittal was maintained and the appeal filed by the prosecution was dismissed. In the meanwhile, it is seen that for filling of certain vacancies in Grade-III posts a DPC was held on 12-10-2007 and based on the recommendation made by the DPC, respondent No. 2, who is said to be junior to the petitioner was promoted. After his acquittal in the year 2009, the petitioner represented to the department seeking promotion to the Grade-III post at par with respondent No. 2, who was promoted while the petitioner was facing prosecution and when this representation was rejected the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and the application having been rejected by the impugned order, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Shri Saurabh Tiwari, appearing for the petitioner points out that when the petitioner was facing criminal case, the DPC met on 12-10-2007, the recommendation of the DPC was kept in a sealed cover. After his acquittal, the sealed cover was opened and on the ground that the departmental promotion committee has found the petitioner "unfit" for promotion he was not granted promotion at par with respondent No. 2. His case was thereafter considered and in a vacancy that arose in the subsequent year 2007-08, he has been promoted. Shri Saurabh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the DPC which met on 12-10-2007, the proceedings with regard to the petitioner were kept in a sealed cover and the DPC had declared the petitioner unfit for promotion only because the vigilance case was pending against him. It is pointed out that due to this vigilance case, the integrity of the petitioner was indicated to be doubtful and because of this adverse entry, the petitioner was denied promotion. However, after his acquittal, the representation of the petitioner was considered and the adverse entry was expunged but inspite of expunction, no review DPC has been held and his case at par with respondent No. 2 has not been considered, accordingly Shri Tiwari submits that the action of the respondent is unsustainable.

(3.) Shri O.P. Namdeo, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has tried to justify the action of the department and submitted that the petitioner having been promoted in the year 2008 cannot have any grievance in the matter. As the action is taken based on the recommendation made by the DPC which met on 12-10-2007.