SAMBIT PATNAIK Vs. COAL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the communication dated 3.11.2001 issued by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd., (O.P. No.5) (hereinafter referred to as 'M.C.L.') intimating therein regarding non -consideration of his promotion from E -3 to E -4 grade on the ground of pendency of a vigilance case and has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to issue promotion order in his favour from the date, i.e. 19.12.2000 on which date his counterparts have been promoted and he has further made a prayer for consequential benefits.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition by the petitioner is stated as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed under the opposite parties on 6.4.1990 and has been performing his duties under the opposite parties without any adverse remarks and blemish. During the course of his service, the petitioner was promoted from E -1 to E -2 grade on 6.4.1991 and subsequently, he was promoted from E -2 to E -3 grade on 3.8.1994. Chapter -IV of the Common Coal Cadre prescribes the procedure for promotion of the employees of the opposite parties and the said Chapter specifically provides the manner of promotion from one grade to another in terms of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Sub -clause -II of Clause 4.8 under same Chapter specifically provides that in case of promotion beyond E -3 grade the criteria for promotion would be merit -cum -seniority. Sub -clause (b) of Clause 4.13 prescribes as follows:before issuing promotion order on the basis of the recommendation of appropriate Departmental Promotion Committee, clearance from the Vigilance Department of the concerned Company should be obtained. In case of executive has served for more than two Companies during the period of last five years, a clearance from the Vigilance Department of the Companies where the employee had worked previously should be obtained before issue of promotion order.

(3.) THE petitioner in E -3 grade was placed in SI. No.181, in the global seniority list (Annexure -3) and above him in SI. Nos. 179, 180 and 181 were Sri B. K. Jha, P. K. Sahani and Satyendra Singh placed respectively. In the month of November, 2000 a Departmental Promotion Committee in terms of Common Cadre was held and in the said D.P.C. the case of the petitioner along with similarly situated persons was favourably considered by the authorities and on 17.1.2001, the promotion orders in respect of the said Sri B.K. Jha, P.K. Sahani and Satyendra Singh to E -4 grade were issued, whereas the petitioner was deprived of such promotion (Annexure -4). The petitioner coming to know this, submitted series of representations to the opposite parties, vide Annexure -5 series and he was intimated that his case for promotion to E -4 grade was not considered by the authorities on the ground of pendency of vigilance case. The Coal India Ltd., subsequently clarified in its letter dated 5.6.2002, the position that vigilance clearance of an officer can be withheld if: (i) He is under suspension, (ii) He has been issued with a charge sheet, (iii) He is facing a Criminal Prosecution. Accordingly, the O.P. No.1 was directed to review all cases for promotion where no charge sheet has been filed. A copy of such letter dated 5.6.2002 has been annexed as Annexure -6,