RAMLAKHAN RAI Vs. CHAIRMAN COAL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to promote him to M-3 Grade in Mining Department w. e. f. 3-3-1998 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, Departmental Promotion Committee met in December, 1996, for empanelment of officers for promotion to M-3 Grade. Petitioner, who was working in M-2 Grade, his case for promotion to M-3 Grade was considered and he was empanelled for such a promotion in March, 1997. It is the stand of the petitioner that in the panel, his name was placed above G. L. Verma and below Abhiram Sharma. It is the case of the petitioner that persons who were below him in the panel have already been promoted to M-3 Grade by order dated 3rd March, 1998 (Annexure P-5 ). When petitioner was not promoted to M-3 Grade, he filed representation and in answer thereto, by letter dated 16-4-1999 (Annexure P-2), he was informed that although he was empanelled for promotion to M-3 Grade but "order could not be issued due to pendency of two charge-sheets against you in connection with some cases related to your tenure at BCCL. You may get benefit of above empanelment provided you are exonerated from the charges against the charge-sheets dated 21-4-1995 and 31-5-1995. " Respondents by letter dated 10th May, 1998 (Annexure P-3) communicated to the petitioner about inadvertent error which has crept in the communication dated 16th April, 1998, as regards to the dates of the charge-sheets. It has been stated that the charge-sheets should be read as dated 31-5-95 and 29-6-95. By letter dated 8th December, 1998 (Annexure P-4), petitioner was communicated that he has been exonerated from the charges levelled against him in charge-sheets dated 31-5-1995 and 29-6-1995. It is the stand of the petitioner that his promotion to M-3 Grade was being denied on the ground that enquiries in relation to charge-sheets dated 31-5-1995 and 29-6-1995 are pending and although he has been exonerated from the aforesaid charges, still respondents have not issued the order promoting him.

(3.) RETURN has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is their stand that according to the service rules governing the petitioner, Vigilance and Safety Clearance are to be obtained before issuing promotion order. It has been stated that a departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner in a case relating to over reporting of Coal despatches, but no charge-sheet has been issued. As regards the Safety Clearance, it has been stated that cases in relation to accidents in the Mines are pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dudhi, as also Judicial Magistrate, Waidhan.