Sandeepkumar Agrawal vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Guj) 703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.R. Brahmbhatt, V.P. Patel, JJ.
Sandeepkumar Agrawal - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 20744 of 2017
Decided On : 25-10-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : G.M. Joshi, Sr. Counsel and Vyom H. Shah
For the Respondents: Joy Mathew and Mauna M. Bhatt

Headnote:
Employment and Service matter – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Departmental proceedings – Compulsory retirement – Penalty – Challenged – Reinstatement – Petitioner joined Indian Telecom services on he face departmental proceedings which resulted into imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement as per order – Said order of compulsory retirement was challenged by petitioner by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal – Central Administrative Tribunal allowed said application by passing the order and judgment setting aside the order of penalty and issuing appropriate direction – Disciplinary authority set aside the order of penalty petitioner came to be reinstated in service in Junior Administrative petitioner contending that petitioners immediate junior was given ad-hoc promotion in the SAG and regularized same treatment and benefit to him also – Petitioner was informed under communication that the petitioner was not eligible at the time when petitioners immediate junior was considered – whether was it open to the respondents not to accord all and total consequential benefits flowing from the order – Held, answer would be obvious No – The authorities have all along constantly acted in compliance with the order of the Tribunal, which has attained finality and when the DPC held was called for review DPC and when the ACRs grading were rectified, they obviously would relate back to the date on which they were written. Therefore, it cannot be said that the rectification would act or help the concerned employee for his future DPCs. We hasten to add here that the Office Memorandum, thus provide the same. But, the decision of Dev Dutt (Supra) with following observations clearly held that the non-communication of the grading below benchmark to the concerned employee is violative of principle of natural justice and amounting to lack of fairness on the part of the authorities – Supreme Court did not indicate anywhere that the said declaration of law was only prospective. Rather it is trite to say that the declaration of law by the Court is always retrospective and in a given case – Besides, it is also required to be noted that even office memorandum also talks about DPC – In the present case, the pleadings and record clearly stated that the DPC and exercise undertaken is only with regard to DPC. Hence, we are of the view that the decision rendered by Tribunal is erroneous and is required to be quashed and set aside as petitioner has made-out a case based upon earlier pronouncement made by the Court and the employer - respondent have clearly complied therewith and when grant of benefits in his favour including in service on duty for all the purposes then the denial of benefit would not be justified – Petition is allowed. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)

JUDGMENT :

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The petitioner by way of this petition has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers.

"(A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the record in proceeding of OA No. 181 of 2014 and after perusing the same be pleased to quashed and set aside the past by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal on 27th of June 2017 and be pleased to hold that petitioner/applicant was entitled to the prayer made in the OA No. 181 of 2014.

(B) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Thus, what is under challenge is the order and judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Original Application No. 181 of 2014 dated 27th June 2017 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application of the present petitioner for the reasons stated there under.

3. The facts in brief shorn off unnecessary details and as could be gathered from the papers of this petition as well as the order impugned deserve to be set-out as under:-

3.1. The petitioner joined Indian Telecom services on 11th July 1983. The petitioner had to face departmental proceedings under Memorandum dated 22nd March 2001, which resulted into imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement as per the order dated 21st August 2003. The said order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the petitioner by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench by preferring Original Application No. 451 of 2003. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the said application by passing the order and judgment on 29th April 2008 setting aside the order of penalty and issuing appropriate direction. The disciplinary authority set aside the order of penalty on 9th March 2010. The petitioner came to be reinstated in service in Junior Administrative Grade that would be (JAG) on regular basis w.e.f. 21st August 2001 and he was fixed below one Mr. V. Eswaran (Staff No. 2246) and above one Shri Manjit Singh Dhilon (staff no. 2249). The petitioner made representation on 22nd July 2010 contending that petitioner's immediate junior Shri Manjit Singh Dhilon was given ad-hoc promotion in the SAG and regularized in the year 2003. The petitioner urged for the same treatment and benefit to him also. The petitioner was informed under the communication dated 28/29th September 2010 that the petitioner was not eligible at the time when the petitioner's immediate junior was considered and hence, the petitioner's case for promotion to SAG was not acceptable. On 4th August 2010, the petitioner was served with below benchmark grading in Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2002-2003 permitting him to make representation thereupon, if any, for seeking rectification in the grading in the ACR. The petitioner submitted his representation, which came to be accepted and the ACRs were changed from "Good" to "Very Good". The petitioner was also informed that in the order dated 12th December 2010, the authority decided to treat the entire period of absence from 28th August 2003 to 15th March 2010 as period spent 'on duty' for all purposes and the competent authority also sanctioned grant of arrears of pay and allowances based thereupon. The said order is placed on record at Annexure-I dated 13th December 2010. The petitioner was granted Non-Functional Up-gradation (NFU) on 7th January 2011 in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) of the ITS (Indian Telecom Service) Group 'A' w.e.f. 24th May 2010. The petitioner urged the authority by way of representation that the NF

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Guj) 703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADS.R. Brahmbhatt, V.P. Patel, JJ.Sandeepkumar Agrawal - AppellantsVs.Union of India and Ors. - RespondentsR/Special Civil Application No. 20744 of 2017Decided On : 25-10-2019

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.R. Brahmbhatt, V.P. Patel, JJ.
Sandeepkumar Agrawal - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 20744 of 2017
Decided On : 25-10-2019