S.C. KALRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Punjab PWD (B&R) Branch on November 12, 1970 through the Punjab Public Service Commission and was promoted as Executive Engineer on July 5, 1975. The respondent-State of Punjab issued a provisional seniority list of the P.S.E. I Class Officers of PWD (B&R) Branch on September 17, 1985 in which the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 65 whereas one Gurbhajan Singh Mann was at Sr. No. 67. The services of the petitioner are governed by Punjab Service of Engineers Class I, PWD (Buildings & Roads Branch). As per Rule 9 of the Rules, promotion from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Superintendent Engineer is to be made by selection on the basis of merit and suitability. The petitioner while working as Executive Engineer at S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali with effect from February 1, 1995 detected certain irregularities in the office under his charge. He accordingly reported the matter to the higher authorities which resulted in the suspension of the Sub Divisional Engineer and one Junior Engineer vide orders dated August 3, 1995 and August 8, 1995. The Chief Engineer to whom this information was also conveyed and directed the petitioner to further enquire into the matter and on this the petitioner affirmed that there was a shortage of material worth Rs. 9.51 lacs. An anonymous complaint was, however, made against the petitioner and the matter was, therefore, entrusted to the Vigilance Department. It is the petitioner's case that Gurbhajan Singh Mann mentioned above who was junior to the petitioner and was also eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer along with the petitioner was the head of the Technical Wing of the Vigilance Department and he was able to direct an investigation into the said complaint. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Fatehgarh Sahib vide his letter date 14-11-96 sought certain informations from the petitioner and the same were duly supplied to him. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on June 6, 1996 to consider various eligible Officers including the petitioner for regular promotions to the post of Superintendent Engineer. On the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the State Govt. promoted various officers as Superintendent Engineers vide order dated September 25, 1996 including Gurbhajan Singh Mann but the name of the petitioner was put in a sealed cover on the basis of instructions dated 20.1.94 Annexure P-6 which provided inter-alia that when a Govt. employee was under suspension or where a charge-sheet had been issued or a criminal prosecution was pending, promotion could not be made and the assessment made by the Departmental Promotion Committee qua such officers was to be put in a sealed cover. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation Annexure P-7 to the petition in which it was pointed out that the allegations made against the petitioner were wrong and the proceedings of the Departmental Selection Committee which had put his assessment in a sealed cover were contrary to the government instructions. It appears that the representation filed by the petitioner met with partial successes as vide order dated 23.10.96 Annexure P-8 to the petition, he was ordered to the promoted on an ad hoc basis and G.S. Mann was ordered to be reverted vide order dated 23.10.96 Annexure P-9. The petitioner, accordingly, joined as Superintendent Engineer at Ferozepur on October 30, 1996. Gurbhajan Singh Mann aforesaid aggrieved by order Annexures P-8 and P-9 filed CWP No. 16964 of 1996. The petition was allowed vide judgment date May 19, 1997 and the orders Annexures P-8 and P-9 were quashed. The Division Bench observed that a regular promotee such as G.S. Mann could not be reverted to make way for an ad hoc promotee such as the petitioner even if the petitioner was senior in rank. The Division Bench also observed that as the aforesaid writ petition had been filed by G.S. Mann, the present petitioner being a respondent could not get any relief in it and could file an independent petition if so desired. The present petition has, accordingly, been filed by the petitioner challenging the action of Departmental Promotion Committee in putting the result of his assessment in a sealed cover. It is the admitted position that a charge- sheet has now been served on the petitioner on 17.10.96 but no disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner thereon.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and a reply has been filed by the respondent-State.

(3.) It has been admitted that the petitioner was senior to G.S. Mann. It has been averred that the petitioner's averment had been put in a sealed cover on the basis of Government instructions dated 20.1.94 and in particular para 6 thereof which reads as under :-