UNION OF INDIA Vs. C K MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India and another have filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 16.01.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Original Application (O.A. No. 720-JK of 2011) filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed and the action of the petitioners in not promoting him to the Higher Administrative Grade was held to be illegal, and petitioners were directed to promote respondent No. 1 with effect from the date others, recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee, were promoted. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No. 1 and gone through the impugned order.

(2.) In the present case, respondent No. 1 was working in Senior Administrative Grade in the Indian Defence Estates[Services. On 12.8.2010, the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was held to consider the case of promotion of the eligible officers to the next higher rank, i.e., Higher Administrative Grade. The names of five officers, including respondent No. 1, were recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the Higher Administrative Grade. The said recommendation was accepted by the Ministry of Defence in the month of September, 2010 and papers were forwarded to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for grant of approval. The said Committee of the Cabinet approved the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee on 7.10.2010 (Annexure A-3). As per the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, three persons senior to respondent No. 1 were promoted. But in spite of availability of another post, the promotion of respondent No. 1 was kept in abeyance. Later on, respondent No. 1 got information that his promotion was withheld on the ground that on 13.5.2011 a charge-sheet was issued to him.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 challenged the action of the petitioners by filing the aforesaid Original Application, which was allowed by the learned Tribunal while holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 3 JT 527, the petitioners were not justified to keep the promotion of respondent No. 1 in abeyance as on the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the promotion case of respondent No. 1 along with others and the Appointments.