MURARI KUMAR SINHA Vs. CHAIRMAN, COAL INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order dated 10/11.5.2001 issued under the signature of Deputy Chief Personnel Manager by which promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Deputy Personnel Manager in E -4 grade with effect from 23.9.1997 has been cancelled on account of pendency of another departmental proceeding and further for a direction upon the respondents to refund the total amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner on account of his working in E -4 grade.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that he was granted promotion in E -4 grade in pursuance of the order -dated 2.6.1998. The said promotion granted with effect from 23.9.1997. It is contended by the petitioner that he was entitled to promotion in E -4 grade with effect from 23.9.1997 but the said promotion was not given because of pendency of departmental proceeding against him. The said departmental proceeding was concluded by exonerating the petitioner from the charges vide order dated 15.5.1998 and thereafter, petitioner has been granted promotion. In pursuance bf the order of promotion, petitioner started working in E -4 grade and getting salary but the respondents have issued another charge - sheet against the petitioner vide charge -sheet dated 29.10.1997 and another departmental proceeding was initiated and thereafter the same was concluded by imposing minor penalty of with -holding of increments for one year. All of a sudden vide order dated 1.5.2001 promotion order of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that at the relevant point of time when promotion order was issued, a departmental proceeding was pending against him.

(3.) MR . M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that petitioner was promoted to E -4 grade vide order dated 2.6.1998 with notional seniority/notional fixation of pay from 23.9.1997, The said order of promotion could not be issued earlier 2.6.1998 since he was shown not clear from vigilance action as major penalty proceeding was pending against him. Learned counsel submitted that promotion order of the petitioner was issued during the pendency of another departmental proceeding in which he was issued a charge -sheet. Inadvertently the company did not inform about the pendency of the charge -sheet dated 29.10.1997. In that view of the matter, the promotion of the petitioner has been rightly cancelled by the respondents.