MAJOR V.K. PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Major V.K. Pandey has filed two separate writ petitions bearing Nos. 10804 of 1994 and 5273 of 1995, which according to the directions of the admitting Benches have got to be disposed of together.

(2.) The facts relating to the service profile of the petitioner which are not in dispute, are that he joined the military service on 17.6.1973 and was allotted to the Corps of Engineers. He had thereafter been given due promotions and the last promotion given to him was that of a Major on July 31, 1984. In 1989, he was working as Garrison Engineer, Kheria and was responsible for the maintenance of Air Force Station, Agra. The construction of Hardstanding in the aforesaid station was also executed under his supervision between April, 1988 to April, 1989. The Air Force authorities had started using the Hardstanding immediately on completion of the work. The specifications, according to which the Hardstanding was to be constructed, were issued by the Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone, but according to the respondents, the petitioner chose to adopt his own specifications owing to which the major defects were noticed by the Air Force authorities. A Technical Board of Officers was constituted to ascertain the cause of the major defects and the Board had evidently given an adverse report against the petitioner, which led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. After the framing of the charge, a punishment of reprimand in writing was awarded by the GOC, U.P. Area, in terms of section 84 of the Army Act.

(3.) In CWP No. 10804 of 1994, the main grouse of the petitioner was that although his name had been cleared for appearance before the Selection Board, which was going to consider his case for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and consequent whereto he had put in appearance before the Selection Board, the result when declared on 4.6.1962 indicated against his name as Result Later. He further submits that the fact of his having been approved for promotion is indicated in letter dated 20.7.1992 Annexure P-6, but inspite of the issuance of this letter a Special Review Board was constituted in February, 1993 whose result when declared on 1.3.1993 showed that the case of the petitioner for promotion had been rejected. The petitioner had made a statutory representation against this rejection, which too was dismissed and in the writ, the petitioner confined the relief sought for the failure of the respondents to grant him promotion despite the fact that his juniors had been promoted. According to him his rejection was illegal and arbitrary as other officers, who were similarly placed had been considered and promoted.