IMPORTANT POINT
Promotion in government service cannot be denied solely based on the pendency of a vigilance inquiry; a charge memo or charge-sheet must be issued for such denial to be lawful.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate; and Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, appearing on behalf of their respective respondents.

2. The petitioner, in the present proceeding, has assailed the regular inquiry being Regular Enquiry No. 42(9)2016, as instituted against him by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam. The petitioner has further raised a grievance with regard to the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not promoting him to the cadre of Junior Grade-I of the Assam Finance Service in terms of his selection for such promotion by the constituted Selection Board in its meeting held on 03.03.2023, on the ground of pendency of the said vigilance enquiry i.e. Regular Enquiry No. 42(9)2016, against him.

3. The petitioner, herein, was initially recruited as a Finance and Accounts Officer(FAO) in the Assam Finance Service on 04.06.2007. The post, the petitioner was recruited to, fell within the Junior Grade-III of the said service. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the cadre of Junior Grade-II of the service.

4. In the gradation list as published on 18.05.2020 in respect of the officers in the Junior Grade-II of Assam Finance Service; the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 15. It is revealed from the records that a Selection Board meeting was convened on 03.03.2023, for consideration of the cases of the officers in the Junior Grade-II of the Assam Finance Service for promotion to the post figuring in the Junior Grade-I of the Assam Finance Service.

5. In the said selection meeting; the Selection Board had made the consideration in respect of 78 vacant posts in the cadre of Junior Grade-I of the Assam Finance Service.

6. On consideration of the cases of the persons in the zone of consideration; the Selection Board proceeded to recommend the names of 61 incumbents for promotion. The name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 10 in the recommendations so made by the Selection Board.

7. It is to be noted here that on account of the pendency of the Disciplinary Proceeding/Criminal Proceedings, the cases of 4 officers came to be kept in “sealed cover” and the cases of 3 officers were not so recommended on account of the fact that they had not submitted their annual property returns and ACRs.

8. The Selection Board in its recommendations had also further stipulated that promotion of the officers, so recommended, to the cadre of Junior Grade-I was further subject to obtaining vigilance clearance in respect of each of them. In pursuance of the recommendations as made by the constituted Selection Board, the respondent authorities vide Notification, dated 25.04.2023, proceeded to issue orders promoting the officers so recommended to the cadre of Junior Grade-I and accordingly, 60 officers came to be so promoted to the cadre Junior Grade-I of the Assam Finance Service. However, the name of the petitioner, herein, did not figure in the list of 60 persons.

9. It is contended that on an enquiry being made by the petitioner for understanding the reasons for which his name was omitted in the said Notification, dated 25.04.2023; he was given to understand that a regular inquiry being Regular Enquiry No. 42(9)2016 was initiated against him by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam, for complaints received against the petitioner during his tenure as Finance and Accounts Officer(FAO) in the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary and Dairy Development Department, Assam and enquiry therein was in progress.

10. Armed with the said information and with the contention that the said vigilance inquiry, not having been concluded; the petitioner could not have been denied his due promotion to the cadre of Junior Grade-I in terms of his selection by the constituted Selection Board; the present proceeding has been so instituted by the petitioner.

11. Mr. Patowary, learned