UNION OF INDIA Vs. GADADHAR PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India represented through its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) has filed this writ petition challenging the order dtd. 27/7/2012 passed in O.A. No. 14 of 2021 under Annexure-1, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has acceded to the prayer of opposite party no.1 to appoint him to Indian Administrative Service (IAS) consequent upon inclusion of his name in the Select List of 2007 prepared for appointment/promotion of the State Civil Service Officers of Orissa to Indian Administrative Service.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that a meeting of the IAS selection committee was held on 1/11/2010. The name of opposite party no.1 was included in the list, but provisionally, as departmental proceeding was pending against him at that time. On attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years being a State Civil Service Officer, the opposite party no.1 was retired from service on 31/1/2011. The opposite party no.1 was exonerated from the charges in the departmental proceeding on 15/2/2011 after he was superannuated from service on 31/1/2011. Thereafter, the appointment notification was issued on 24/2/2011 by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in respect to the unconditionally included officers. But, opposite party no.1 was not appointed, as because Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) did not inform DoPT regarding his exoneration nor declared to enter his name as unconditional. On 24/4/2011, preliminary charge sheet was filed against opposite party no.1 in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.47 of 2006. Thereafter, on 2/6/2011, UPSC declared inclusion of the name of the opposite party no.1 unconditional. Therefore, opposite party no.1 filed O.A. No. 403 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to promote him to IAS w.e.f. 24/2/2011 and the said Original Application was disposed of on 10/8/2011 directing the DoPT to consider the case of opposite party no.1 within a period of 45 days.

(3.) Mr. Debashish Tripathy, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India vehemently contended that opposite party no.1 being a tainted officer against whom vigilance cases were pending cannot be promoted to be appointed as IAS as per the Regulation 7(3) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. It is contended that by the time the case of opposite party no.1 was under consideration a vigilance case was pending where charge sheet was submitted and thereafter due to pendency of such case though his name was enlisted provisionally in the list of appointment/promotion to the post of IAS, but due to pendency of the vigilance case, promotion was not given to him and, as such, in the meantime, on attaining the age of superannuation, he had already retired from the State Government service. Subsequently, after his retirement, three other vigilance cases were found to be pending against him. As a matter of fact, when the case of opposite party no.1 was under consideration, the vigilance cases were pending against him where charge sheets were submitted and, therefore, no promotion was given to him. As such, the claim made by opposite party no.1, that he should be granted the benefit of promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, the direction given by the tribunal to extend the benefit to opposite party no.1 from the date his juniors were given promotion also cannot be sustained, as by the time the case of opposite partyno.1 was considered for promotion, a vigilance case was pending where charge sheet had already been submitted. Merely because his name was provisionally included in the list, no right can be accrued in favour of the opposite party no.1 for giving promotion.