Promotion procedures require adherence to principles that prevent deferral based on unsubstantiated allegations when no disciplinary action is pending, ensuring fair consideration of eligible candidates.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - The petition challenges the order of CAT directing the constitution of a review DPC for the promotion to Inspector General (IG) level for an officer with impugned deferment based on misconduct allegations. (Paras 1, 6, 29)

(B) Promotion Procedure - DPC was found to improperly defer consideration, as no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the officer at the time of the DPC meeting, violating principles established in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman which state that mere pendency does not bar promotion consideration. (Paras 6, 22, 28)

Facts of the case:
The respondent, an IPS officer, claimed wrongful deferment in promotion based on past allegations which were not substantiated by any ongoing disciplinary action. The CAT ruled in favor of the respondent, prompting the current petition.

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the CAT's order while clarifying that if the respondent is found fit for promotion by the newly constituted DPC, any eventual promotion shall adhere to stipulated guidelines regarding pending disciplinary procedures.

Issues: The core issue was whether the DPC wrongly deferred the respondent's promotion based on unsubstantiated misconduct allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concurred with CAT's reasoning that deferring an eligible candidate's promotion solely due to contemplated proceedings, without any current disciplinary status, undermines the established promotion protocols.

Result: Petition disposed of without interfering with CAT's order, clarifying DPC procedure regarding pending disciplinary allegations.

Table of Content
1. promotion eligibility of ips officers (Para 1 , 4)
2. deferment criteria and procedural compliance (Para 5 , 6)
3. integrity certificate and its implications (Para 7 , 10)
4. sealed cover procedure applicability (Para 15 , 26)
5. clarification on promotion procedures related to pending cases (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The petition impugns the order dated 27th November, 2020 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowing OA No.708/2020 preferred by the respondent and directing the petitioner to constitute a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for consideration of the respondent for promotion to the level of Inspector General (IG), with effect from 1st January, 2020, and to take further steps in accordance with law, preferably before the regular DPC for next batch of officers of IG takes place.

2. This petition came up first before us, yesterday, when the counsel for the respondent appeared on caveat. Though we heard the counsels finally on the petition, yesterday itself but adjourned the matter to today to give opportunity to counsels to answer a legal query made pursuant to the hearing.

3. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG), appearing for the petitioner, on enquiry stated that since the impugned order, the review DPC had not taken place but had no instructions whether the regular DPC for next batch of officers of IG had taken place. However the counsel for the respondent stated that regular DPC for next batch of officers for the post of IG had taken place on 28th December, 2020. On yet further enquiry, it was informed that the superannuation of the respondent is due in the year 2022.

4. The respondent, an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, of 2002 batch, of Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and Union Territory (AGMUT) cadre and holding the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, preferred the OA aforesaid impugning the deferment of consideration of the respondent, by the DPC held on 26th December, 2019 for consideration of the batch of officers to which the respondent belonged, for promotion to the grade of IG, with effect from 1st January, 2020, giving the following reasons:

"(i) Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, IPS (AGMUT: 2002): CBI furnished a self contained Note in the Case RC RC$(S)/2012/CBI/SC-I/New Delhi pointing out several lapses on the part of Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, the then ACP and other police officials of Delhi Police in handling riot cases in the area of PS Nareala, Delhi, which took place following assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi. The matter was examined by UT Division in consultation with Delhi Police and Chairman (SIT), Anti Sikh Riot cases and with the approval of Hon'ble Home Minister, it was decided to close the case against Sh. Rajiv Ranjan. Thereafter, the matter was referred to CVC for advice in the matter. CVC vide its OM dated 01.02.2019 observed that there is clear misconduct on the part of Shri Rajiv Ranjan and advised major penalty proceedings against him under AIS Rules. Since then, the matter is under examination for exploring further course of action.

(ii) Para 11.1 of the guidelines issued by IPS-II vide letter dated 15.01.1999 for promotion of IPS officers to the various grades, stipulates that "the integrity certificate would be withheld only in cases where one or other contingencies as indicated in Para 11.1 supra has arisen", i.e.

(a) Officers under suspension.

(b) Officers in respect of whom a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending.

(iii) Further DoP&T OM No.22034/4/2012-Estt(D) dated 02.11.2012 provides that where it becomes essential in respect of officers in whose case disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending and are included in consideration zone for promotion, necessary action be taken for placing the proposal before the DPC so that vigilance clearance is not allowed as per conditions ment