RAJ KISHORE JHA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT/petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1991 on the post of Block Development Officer in the Department of Panchayat and rural Development, Government of M. P. Certain complaints were received against the petitioner in the year 1995-96. After due enquiry punishment of stoppage of one increment for two years with non-cumulative effect has been awarded to him by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 1-8-1997 marked as annexure A/1. The appeal, preferred against the same, was dismissed by the deputy Secretary of Panchayat and Rural Development Department vide order dated 17-12-1998 contained in Annexure A/2. In the meantime, D. P. C. was held to consider the promotion of Block Development Officers to the post of additional Assistant Development Commissioner on 28-8-1998. Pursuant thereto the impugned promotion order vide Annexure A/4 was passed on 31-12-1998 promoting thereby certain juniors including respondent No. 4. Orders Annexures a/1 and A/2 were challenged initially before the M. P. State Administrative tribunal at Jabalpur in O. A. No. 158/00 whereas the order of promotion contained in Annexure A/4 has been challenged in O. A. No. 450/00 giving rise to the present writ petition. Return was submitted in O. A. No. 158/00 whose copy is on record as Annexure R/1. In paragraph 2 it has been clearly mentioned that the applicant's name was not placed before D. P. C. for consideration as he was undergoing punishment at the relevant time when the D. P. C. met. Thus, D. P. C. was admittedly held on 28-8-1998 when the appeal against Annexure A/1 was pending before the Appellate Authority. In such situation the authorities ought to have been adopted the sealed cover procedure as prescribed by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Union of India etc. vs. K. V. Jankiraman etc. AIR 1991 SC 2010. Since the order of punishment had not attained finality when the D. P. C. met, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to adopt the sealed cover procedure as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of its order which reads as under :-

(2.) FURTHER, it may be seen that the orders contained in Annexures A/1 and a/2 i. e. punishment order and appellate order have been quashed by this Court on 11-3-2005 in W. P. No. 14541/03 (Old O. A. No. 158/00 ). Copy of this order is also on record. Thus, the reasons for which the petitioner's name was not placed before the D. P. C. stood vanished on account of quashment of Annexures A/1 and a/2. Such quashment will have the effect of wiping out the allegations for which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him which further entitles him to be considered for promotion to the post of Additional Assistant Development commissioner. Had D. P. C. adopted the sealed cover procedure such a sealed cover could have been opened and implemented. Since the D. P. C. did not consider the petitioner's name for promotion and he became entitled to be considered on account of quashment of Annexure A/1 and A/2. His case deserved to be considered even on 28-8-1998 though through sealed cover procedure. After quashment, he fully became entitled to be considered for promotion to the aforesaid post. Since he was not considered at the relevant time and has become now fully entitled, his case for promotion deserves to be considered by review D. P. C.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. Respondents are directed to convene the review D. P. C. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order for consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Assistant development Commissioner. Needless to say that consequential benefits would follow the outcome of the review D. P. C. Petition, accordingly, stands allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.