UNION OF INDIA Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred by the Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Army Headquarters and its Engineer-in-Chief, New Delhi, challenging judgment dated 18.8.2004 (P-10), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, the Tribunal). The Tribunal in its order has concluded that as per the provisions of Rule 4 read with Item No. 5 of the Schedule of the Military Engineer Services (Surveyor of Works Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 1985 (for brevity, the Rules), a degree holder Assistant Surveyor of Works seeking promotion to the post of Surveyor of Works does not require to pass the final examination of the Institution of Surveyors (India) or equivalent because the degree itself is an equivalent qualification for the aforesaid examination.

(2.) Facts are not in dispute. The Original Applicant-respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Surveyor of Works on 9.9.1991. For promotion to the post of Surveyor of Works aforementioned statutory Rules have been enacted. Apart from the Rules, the petitioners have issued instructions dated 6.4.1998 and 7.9.1994 (P-1 and P-22 respectively) laying down that passing of final examination of the Institution of Surveyors (India) is mandatory. On the basis of communication dated 3.4.1997 sent by the Garrison Engineer, the Original Applicant-respondent No. 1 was given promotion on the post of Surveyor of Works on 25.5.1998. However, a complaint was made with respect to the Original Applicant-respondent No. 1 to point out that he did not actually pass the examination in full and, therefore, according to the case of the department in the absence of passing the examination he could not have been promoted. For further promotion from the post of Surveyor of Works, the persons junior to the Original Applicant-respondent No. 1, namely, respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were promoted as Superintendent Surveyor of Works on 19.2.2004. However, the case of the Original Applicant-respondent No. 1 was not considered on the allegation that he had not passed the examination and it was alleged that he had fabricated letter dated 3.4.1997 purportedly written by Institution of Surveyors (India) showing that he had actually passed the examination. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 5.5.2004 (P-5) was issued.

(3.) The Original Applicant-respondent No. 1 filed O.A. No. 214/CH/2004 seeking direction that he is entitled to be considered for promotion on the post of Superintendent Surveyor of Works with effect from the date persons junior to him like respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have been promoted. When show cause notice dated 5.5.2004 (P-5) was issued, the Original Applicant-respondent No. 1 filed M.A. No. 693 of 2004 before the Tribunal to challenge the show cause notice. On 3.6.2004, the Tribunal stayed reversion of the Original Applicant-respondent No. 1 from the post of Surveyor of Works. In the meanwhile, on 28.11.2006, a Memorandum of charge was issued to him proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The aforesaid charge sheet was challenged by the Original Applicantrespondent No. 1 before the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal. The matter was transferred to Chandigarh Bench and was registered as O.A. No. 743/PB/2009. Eventually, the said OA was dismissed on 17.8.2010 with a direction to the petitioners to complete the inquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. That order has attained finality and has virtually been accepted by the Original Applicantrespondent No. 1. The aforesaid inquiry is stated to be still pending.