The court ruled that promotions must not be granted when disciplinary proceedings are pending, reinforcing the importance of integrity and legality in public service roles.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

CM Nos.8594/2021, 8595/2021 (both for exemption) & 8596/2021 (for permission to file lengthy list of dates)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.2852/2021 & CM No.8597/2021 (for filing additional documents)

3. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 25th January, 2021 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, of closing the contempt case being C.P. No.422/2016 filed by the petitioner, averring non-compliance by the respondents of the order dated 12th May, 2016 in OA No.3604/2015 filed by the petitioner.

4. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner.

5. OA No.3604/2015 was filed by the petitioner, an Officer of the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax), of 1994 Batch, then working as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking promotion to the grade of Commissioner of Income Tax, with effect from 16th September, 2015, being the date when his immediate junior was promoted.

6. CAT, in the order dated 12th May, 2016, found/observed/held (i) that the petitioner fulfilled all the eligibility conditions for promotion and the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports of the petitioner for relevant years also met the prescribed benchmark and that the petitioner was neither facing any criminal case/disciplinary proceedings nor was under suspension; (ii) that the petitioner had however not been promoted because the respondents had obtained the first stage advice of Central Vigilance Commission for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner and therefore the case of the petitioner for promotion had been put on hold; (iii) that only when the government servant was under suspension or had been issued a charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings were pending against him or was under prosecution for a criminal charge, was the finding of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) required to be kept in sealed cover, to be opened after the culmination of the said proceedings and the promotion, even if the recommendation of the DPC was for promotion, had to be kept in abeyance till then; (iv) that the petitioner, at the time of holding of the DPC, did not fall in either of the said categories and the Principal, Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance) had also not withheld the vigilance clearance of the petitioner, as his case did not fall in either of the said three categories; (v) that only when the recommendations of the DPC were submitted to the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for approval, did the ACC desire to know the latest status of the complaint pending against the petitioner and in response whereto it was informed that the first stage advice for initiating major penalty proceeding against the petitioner had been sought; and, (vi) that in these circumstances, there was no ground for withholding promotion of the petitioner. Accordingly, the OA was allowed and the respondents directed to promote the petitioner from the date on which his immediate junior had been promoted.

7. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner before us is, that the aforesaid order of CAT attained finality with the dismissal on 28th May, 2018 of W.P.(C) No.10543/2017 preferred by the respondents thereagainst and CAT, in the impugned order dated 25th January, 2021, has erred in closing the contempt case and not directing implementation of its order dated 12th May, 2016 and in not punishing the respondents for contempt thereof.

8. CAT, in the impugned order, has closed the c