Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Guj) 1857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, GITA GOPI, JJ.
Radha Raman Tiwari S/o Late Balmukund Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Bank Of Baroda & Ors – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 191 of 2018 in R/Special Civil Application No. 8058 of 2017 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2018
Decided on : 04-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR RAMNANDAN SINGH
For the Respondent: MR DARSHAN M PARIKH

IMPORTANT POINT
An employee's promotion cannot be denied based on vigilance clearance if no departmental proceedings were pending at the time of selection, and expiration of the waiting list does not negate the right to promotion.

Headnote:
(A) Bank of Baroda Officers Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - Regulation 11.4 - Promotion Policy - The appellant was denied promotion due to non-receipt of vigilance clearance, despite being placed on the waiting list. The Central Vigilance Commission classified his case as non-vigilance after the waiting list expired. The court ruled that the denial of promotion was arbitrary and illegal. (Paras 22, 26, 34)
(B) Promotion - Legal entitlement - The court held that the expiration of the waiting list does not extinguish the appellant's right to promotion if the denial was unlawful. The appellant's promotion must be effective from the date his juniors were promoted. (Paras 33, 36)

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent stems out from the judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the captioned writ petition, filed by the appellant – original petitioner.

2. The appellant had filed the writ petition claiming promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager. It is the case of the appellant that his juniors are promoted to the said post however, the respondent-Bank did not promote him on the said post at the relevant time due to want of vigilance clearance as per Regulation No.11.4 of the Promotion Policy of the respondent-Bank dated 03.02.2015.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The established facts from the pleadings are that the appellant, who was working as Assistant General Manager was considered for the promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager by the Departmental Promotion Committee, which held the interview on 25.04.2016. The name of the appellant was selected and he was placed at Serial No.48 of the waiting list.

4. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 09.06.2016 was issued to the appellant alleging major lapses and irregularities in the N.P.A. Account. It was alleged that the guarantor, who signed in the guarantee impersonated himself in place of a dead person. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings were conducted and ultimately, the appellant was imposed minor punishment vide order dated 13.10.2017. The appellant was imposed the punishment of “Reduction by one stage in time scale of pay for a period of twelve months without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting the officer’s pension, if opted for” as per the Bank of Baroda Officers Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, more particularly, Regulations 5, 4 and 8(1).

5. After the select list was prepared, the respondent-Bank sought vigilance clearance from the Chief Vigilance Officer and vide communication dated 06.02.2017, the vigilance clearance was granted to other candidates, except the appellant by observing as under:

“Lapses have been reported against him in the advances A/c of M/s. Mumtaz Trading Company. Chamada Mandi Branch, Lucknow Zone. Note to General Manager (DP) for referring the matter to IAC for classification as Vigilance or otherwise is under process.”

6. Thus, as per the said communication, the case of the appellant was referred to the Internal Advisory Committee (I.A.C.) to classify his case as vigilance.

7. In the communication dated 21.02.2017, written by the head of H.R. Administration of the respondent-Bank to the Director seeking approval, it has been referred in paragraph No.6 that, the Internal Advisory Committee classified the matter as “Non-Vigilance (Finance)” in nature and submitted to Chief Vigilance Officer (C.V.O.) for concurrence. However, Chief Vigilance Officer has advised for classifing the matter as “Vigilance”. Thus, this communication refers that though the Internal Advisory Committee had treated and classified the case of the appellant as “Non-Vigilance” the Chief Vigilance Officer did not concur with the opinion of the I.A.C. and advised for classifying the matter as a “vigilance”. It is also opined in the said communication that since the matter is classified as “vigilance” in nature, this will necessarily lead to issuance of charge-sheet to the appellant in next few days. Hence, the memorandum of charge was issued on 16.05.2017.

8. At this stage, it is apposite to refer that the waiting list. in which the name of the appellant figured, expired on 01.04.2017.

9. It is also an admitted fact that since the appellant was of a rank of Assistant General Manager, the respondent-Bank sought concurrence/opinion from the Central Vigilance Commission, after considering the relevant records. This opinion was sought by the confidential letter dated 07.04.2017 from the Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India. Pursuant to the said letter, the Central Vigilance Commission by the Offic