Back
1996 Supreme(Del) 124
High Court Of Delhi
Y L.BANKA - Appellant
Versus
LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 02/01/1996
The sealed cover procedure can only be resorted to after the issuance of a charge memo or charge-sheet.
Headnote:
PROMOTION - DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE - SEALED COVER PROCEDURE - APPLICABILITY - CHARGE-SHEET NOT ISSUED PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF PROMOTION - SEALED COVER PROCEDURE NOT PERMISSIBLE - PROMOTION TO BE GRANTED FROM DATE OF PROMOTION OF JUNIORS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Executive Engineers in the Delhi Development Authority, were considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Their names were placed in a sealed cover due to ongoing vigilance inquiries. Subsequently, charge-sheets were issued against them, and departmental proceedings were initiated. The petitioner No. 1 was exonerated, while petitioner No. 2 received a censure.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sealed cover procedure could not be resorted to since no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioners prior to the DPC meeting. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in K. V. Janaki Raman and Ors v. Union of India and Ors, which held that the sealed cover procedure could only be adopted after the issuance of a charge memo or charge-sheet.
Issues: 1. Whether the sealed cover procedure could be resorted to when no charge-sheet was issued prior to the consideration of promotion by the DPC. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the salary of the higher post from the date their juniors were promoted.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sealed cover procedure could not be resorted to since no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioners prior to the DPC meeting. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in K. V. Janaki Raman and Ors v. Union of India and Ors, which held that the sealed cover procedure could only be adopted after the issuance of a charge memo or charge-sheet. 2. The court held that the petitioner No. 1 was entitled to the salary of the higher post from the date his juniors were promoted since he was exonerated from the charges. However, petitioner No. 2 was not entitled to the salary of the higher post since he was found guilty and received a censure.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner No. 1 the arrear salary with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. The court also directed that petitioner No. 2 be given notional promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, but he would not be entitled to the arrear salary.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been preferred TO by the petitioners praying for a direction to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to give to the petitioners their due promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer for which the petitioners were already selected through a proper and duly constituted Selection Committee and put on the approved panel.
( 2 ) THE petitioners were working as Executive Engineer in the Delhi Development Authority The petitioner No. 1 joined sen ice of the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called the "authority ) as an Assistant Engineer on 14. 2. 1969 from which post he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 1. 3. 1977.
( 3 ) THE petitioner No. 2 joined sen ice as an Assistant Engineer with the Authority on 1. 3. 1969 and was promoted as Executive Engineer on 1. 3. 1977. The petitioners were in the consideration Zone for higher promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer The cases of the petitioners were considered by the Selection Committee for further promotion. The Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of the aforesaid selection made their recommendations However, the recommendations, so far the petitioners are concerned, were kept in a sealed cover in view of the fact that vigilance enquiries were going on against them.
( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, charge-sheets were issued to both the petitioners drawing up departmental proceedings against them and on completion of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner No. l was exonerated, whereas, the petitioner No. 2 was given a punishment of censure. Admittedly the charge- sheets in respect of the petitioner No. l and petitioner No. 2 drawing up departmental proceedings against them were issued on 20. 4. 1985 and 14. 10. 1985 respectively.
( 5 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that so long as charge-sheet is not issued drawing up a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, it cannot be said that a departmental proceeding has been instituted against the delinquent officer and if no charge-sheet is issued, the respondents are duty-bound to consider the cases of promotion of the concerned officers and are not entitled to keep such matters of promotion in a sealed cover as was sought to be done in the instant case and therefore, are required to issue the orders of promotion if so recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied heavily on the ratio of the decision of Union of India and Ors Vs. K. K Janaki Roman and Ors reported in 1991 (4) SSC 109.
( 6 ) MR. Apurab Lal. appearing for the respondents on the other hand relied upon the departmental circular issued by the Government of India (Department of Personnel and Training) on 121. 1988 and submitted that even if a departmental proceeding is contemplated, then also. the Departmental Authority has the power and jurisdiction to resort to sealed cover procedure and put the matter of promotion of the person whose conduct is under investigation in a sealed cover.
( 7 ) FROM the records it is disclosed that the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting for considering the matter of promotion of the petitioners was held on 29. 6. 1984. in which the names of the petitioners along with others were considered. The petitioner No. l was placed at Serial No. l. whereas- the petitioner No. 2 was placed at Serial No 6 of the panel However, the names of all the eligible Executive Engineers whose names were recommended for promotion were directed to be kept in panel subject to vigilance clearance report for their appointment which might arise at the level of Superintending Engineer. It is further revealed that, there was one clear vacant post of Superintending Engineer available at the time when the Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting. and another post became available on account of repatriation of OIK- of the Superintending Engineer Against the aforesaid two posts, two
