UNION OF INDIA Vs. GAUTAM KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Union of India challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A No. 051/00131/2015 with M.A. No. 051/00122/2015 judgment dated 23rd December, 2015 as well as the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Review Application being R.A No. 051/00003/2016 with M.A. No. 051/00022/2016 dated 18th February 2016 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal has granted promotion to respondent no.1 (original applicant) from the post of Senior Administrative Grade to NonFunctional Up-gradation in HAG with effect from 10th July, 2014. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Union of India has challenged the said orders in this Writ Petition. The Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed the O.A. preferred by respondent no.1 mainly on the ground that the penalty imposed upon respondent no. 1 for the proved misconduct ceased to have any effect when respondent no.1 was considered for promotion, whereas, the Union of India had considered the case of respondent no.1 along with other candidates and looking to the comparative merits of the candidates, respondent no.1 was not given promotion. Reasons:

(2.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that respondent no. 1 had committed misconduct and, therefore, he was given charge-sheet. The irregularity was about the tender. It was published in violation of guidelines issued by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunication. The said misconduct has been mentioned at length at Annexure-1 which is dated 1 st July, 2010. Respondent no.1 (original applicant) was punished and the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of two years without cumulative effect was imposed. This punishment order was never challenged by the delinquent-original applicant.

(3.) It further appears from the facts of the case that there were other candidates also who were working on posts having Senior Administrative Grade and they were also punished for the misconduct in some other cases. The petitioners considered 40 candidates including respondent no.1. The Departmental Screening Committee held a meeting on 27th August, 2014 and after considering comparative merits of the candidates and the service records of all the eligible officers, they found respondent no.1 unfit for grant of Non-Functional Up-gradation in HAG.