SUBHASH SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank") as Clerk on 22.04.1989. He was promoted as JMG Scale -I on 16.02.2004 and MMG Scale -II on 22.07.2008. A charge sheet dated 17.07.2010 for imposition of minor penalty was served upon the petitioner and during the disciplinary proceedings, the Bank invited applications for promotion from MMG Scale -II to MMG Scale -III. The petitioner was considered for promotion in Channel -II (written test channel, which does not involve any interview) in the 17th Selection Process -2011. However, on account of pendency of the minor penalty charge -sheet against the petitioner, the Bank resorted to Sealed Cover Procedure, provided in the promotion policy, and kept his promotion in abeyance. The result of promotion was announced on 01.06.2011 and the petitioner was duly selected on merit by the Selection Committee/ Competent Authority for promotion to MMG Scale -III on the basis of the written test. The proceedings initiated vide charge -sheet dated 17.07.2010 culminated, into minor penalty of reduction to a lower stage by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting the pension, on 02.02.2012 and in the meantime, another major penalty charge -sheet dated 06.01.2012 was served upon the petitioner in respect of Vigilance Reference No. 5472. The petitioner applied to the respondents by way of a representation dated 28.03.2013, alleging that the Sealed Cover Procedure was wrongly applied in his case and he has to be promoted along with others in terms of the result declared on 01.06.2011. In response to his representation, the petitioner received a letter dated 13.05.2013 from respondent no. 2 by which he has been informed that his result was withheld for want of vigilance clearance and subsequently cancelled because he became ineligible for promotion on account of imposition of major penalty vide DA order dated 31.10.2012. The petitioner has, thus, challenged the said order dated 13.05.2013 and prayed for a direction to the respondents to give effect to his promotion to MMG Scale -III, which was erroneously kept in sealed cover, with all consequential benefits including seniority and the arrears of the salary on promoted post w.e.f. 10.06.2011, the date the other successful/selected candidates, who were considered for promotion along with the petitioner, were given promotion.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that Regulation 17 of the PNB Officers' Service Regulations, 1979, lays down that the promotions to all grades of Officers in the Bank shall be made in accordance with the Policy laid down by the Board of Directors in exercise of powers conferred by Section -19 read with Sub -Section -26 of Section -12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Pursuant thereto, the HRD Division of the Bank, vide Circular No. 516, issued the promotion policy for officers from JMG Scale -I to MMG Scale -II, MMG Scale -II to MMG Scale -III and MMG Scale -III to SMG Scale -IV. He has referred to Clause 21 of the promotion policy, dealing with the Sealed Cover Procedure, which is reproduced as under: -

(3.) IN support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, : 1991(3) S.C.T. 317, in which it has been held that the Sealed Cover Procedure is to be adopted when charge sheet is issued to an employee and the pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the Sealed Cover Procedure.