The court established that sealed cover procedures in promotions require specific imputations from disciplinary authorities, and a tentative decision does not justify withholding promotion.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge order dated 24.01.2024 in Special Civil Application No. 16493 of 2017, whereby the present appellant-original respondent was directed to forthwith open the sealed cover containing recommendation of the DPC of the year 2008 onwards and was also directed to give promotion effect thereto immediately but not later than a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order dated 24.01.2024. Furthermore, the respondent herein-original petitioner, upon being granted promotion, was held to be entitled to all consequential benefits accruing therefrom.

1.1 The subject-matter of challenge under Special Civil Application No. 16493 of 2017 was the Final order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 19.09.2014, order of the Appellate Authority upholding the decision of the Disciplinary Authority dated 17.05.2017 and inter office memorandum dated 22.07.2014 regarding the inquiry report. Incidental prayers were also made seeking promotion from Grade B’ to Grade ‘C’ with effect from March, 2008.

2. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that Civil Application No. 2 of 2024 is filed for production of additional evidence. According to him, the application is necessitated as certain documents, i.e. order dated 29.06.2007, which was referred to by the learned Single Judge and also perused at the relevant time, but not placed on record and copy of Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector Enterprises and the Role and Functions of the CVC for the purpose of use of word “tentatively” on which the learned Single Judge has led great emphasis. Both the documents being within the knowledge of the respondent-original petitioner, who is present as party-in-person and has no objection if cognizance of the same is taken even during hearing before the learned Single Judge, the same have already been referred to.

2.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant has thereafter challenged the order of the learned Single Judge on two counts, the first contention being that the learned Single Judge has misconstrued the word “tentative”, which is the terminology used in order dated 29.06.2007. It is argued that as the inquiry involved various other officers including an officer of higher level, it was required to invoke and follow the guidelines of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and in such guidelines, word “tentative” has been utilized and therefore only, in order dated 29.06.2007, word “tentative” is used, otherwise Director (Marketing) was confirmed to initiate disciplinary inquiry, as a result of which DPC result qua the respondent was put in sealed cover. Learned Advocate for the appellant in this connection has further argued that nature of charges against the respondent and other officials was very serious and had attained proposition of scam relating to supply of Light Diesel Oil (LDO) and therefore, decision of the appellant was justified in initiating departmental inquiry for a serious charge.

2.2 The second contention raised is with regard to non-appreciation of the arguments of the appellant on the ground of delay in challenge made by the respondent-original petitioner in filing the petition. It is submitted that since 2008, five DPCs were undertaken and the outcome of such DPC qua the respondent was put in sealed cover and thereafter, only in the year 2017, the respondent has challenged the decision of the appellant in grating promotion to the respondent with effect from 2015. Learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735, particularly relying upon Para-9.

3. As against this, party-in-person has argued that though much emphasis is led by the learned Advocate for the appellant on the seriousness of charge, ultimately, upon conclusion of full fledged departmental inquiry, punishment of censure is awarded to the petitioner and the petitione