Point of Law: One cause of action may lead to initiation of Departmental Enquiry on one hand and launching criminal prosecution on the other hand - Finding in one of them is not binding in other proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. MODAK, J.

1. Head by consent finally. Rule.

2. The Petitioner appeared for departmental promotional examination for the post of Scale V conducted by Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The Petitioner’s name did not appear in final merit list. He was orally told that his name was withheld by applying “Sealed Cover Procedure.” He felt aggrieved. The Petitioner tried to pursue his candidateship with higher officers. However, he was not successful. Hence, this Petition for writ of mandamus. Respondent No. 1 is Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent No. 2 is General Manager of Respondent No. 1. They have supported the decision not to promote the Petitioner. They have written to Chief Vigilance Commissioner and they have referred the matter to Central Bureau of Investigation. It is this reason which compelled Respondents to withheld Petitioner’s name from promotion.

3. We have heard Mr. Avinash K. Jalisatgi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1. Also gone through the Judgments and Office Memorandums issued by Department of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), which are placed before us. We are supposed to decide this Petition on following issues:

(a) Whether the Petitioner can claim vested right of promotion?

(b) Whether Respondents were justified in withholding the name of the Petitioner for being promoted?

(c) Whether Petitioner approached this Court belatedly and whether the Petitioner is not entitled to relief due to delay and latches in approaching this Court?

4. For deciding these issues, it will be material to consider the background and certain dates/events.

Background

5. The Petitioner is working as a Manager in Scale IV Class I employee category with Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company. There is “Promotion Policy for Officers-2006” in Vogue. There was a promotion process initiated by Respondent No. 1 in the year 2017 for Scale V. The promotion programme was declared. The Petitioner has participated in that selection process. However, he was not selected in the final merit list. The relevant dates are as follows:

6. According to the Petitioner, he was not being informed about why his name does not appear in the merit list. He was told orally by Offices of Respondent No. 1 that Sealed Cover Procedure was followed. When the Petitioner could not succeed in convincing Officers of Respondent No. 1, this Petition is filed. The Petitioner has asked for following reliefs:

(a) writ of mandamus thereby disclosing the decision of DPC to the Petitioner.

(b) to issue writ of mandamus directing Respondents to open Sealed Cover Procedure.

(c) to issue writ of mandamus against the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the Scale V Post.

7. The Respondents have appeared and contested the Petition.

8. It will be material to consider the averments made in their affidavit-in-reply. They have pleaded the following facts:

(a) Sealed Cover Procedure was followed in promotional exercise of 2017-18.

(b) Vigilance Department has not given vigilance clearance in the name of the Petitioner as its mandatory requirement.

(c) Vigilance Department remarked that Case was referred to CVC for first stage advice on 15 June 2016 with recommendations of CVO and DA.

(d) CVC vide letter dated 20 October 2016 handed over case to SP Bank Securities CBI New Delhi for detailed investigation.

9. The Petitioner has filed a