The mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not justify denying promotion unless a Charge Sheet is filed or Articles of Charge are issued before the DPC Meeting.

ORDER :

(S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.)

This petition by the unsuccessful applicant in Application No.10911/2022 is directed against the impugned order dated 30th March 2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is working as a Village Accountant with the respondent from 16.03.2005 onwards. On the basis of a complaint, criminal proceedings in Crime No.34/2017 were instituted as against the petitioner. Subsequently, on 20.12.2021, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) Meeting was held to consider the candidates for promotion including the petitioner herein. However, the petitioner was denied promotion on the ground that the aforesaid criminal case in Crime No.34/2017 was pending against him. A charge sheet was filed subsequently on 01.02.2022 in the aforesaid Crime No.34/2017 after the said DPC Meeting was held wherein the petitioner was denied promotion. So also, the request of the petitioner by way of representation dated 13.05.2022 having been rejected by respondent No.2 vide impugned endorsement dated 05.07.2022, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the instant application which was contest by the respondents, and dismissed by the Tribunal which passed the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.

4. In addition to reiterating various contention urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V.Janakiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 and in the case of Union of India v. Anil Kumar Sarkar (2013)4 SCC 161, mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be made the basis or come in the way of the promotion of a person who is otherwise eligible. It is also pointed out that on 14.03.1993 itself, the State Government has issued a Circular which inter alia states that as on the date of DPC Meeting if charge sheet is not filed or if the Articles of Charge is not issued, mere pendency of criminal proceedings in the absence of charge sheet being issued, the sealed cover procedure cannot be adopted and the same can be adopted only after issuance of Charge Sheet or Articles of Charge. It is, therefore, submitted that despite the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court and the State Government Circular, the respondents have adopted the sealed cover procedure and denied promotion to the petitioner which has been incorrectly upheld by the Tribunal and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State would support the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the State Government circular dated 14.07.1993 will indicate that the procedure of maintaining a sealed cover and refusing promotion can be adopted by the respondent only in case where charge sheet has already been filed or Articles of Charge has already been issued as against the alleged delinquent official as on the date of DPC Meeting. In the case on hand, the material on record indicates that as on the date of DPC Meeting which was held on 20.12.2021, neither Charge Sheet had been filed nor Articles of Charge had been issued to the