1992 Supreme(Raj) 728
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Hetramdudi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 423 of 1991.
Decided On : 27-05-1992
The DPC has the discretion to assess the suitability of a government servant for promotion, even if they are facing an inquiry or prosecution, and that a blanket ban on their consideration is impermissible. The punishment imposed on an employee cannot be the sole basis for declaring them unfit for promotion, and the competent authority must objectively consider the employee's record and the reasons for the punishment.
Headnote:
The court held that the circular issued by the government, which barred the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) from considering the cases of government servants facing departmental inquiries or criminal prosecution for promotion, was ultra vires to the relevant service rules. The court held that the DPC has the discretion to assess the suitability of a government servant for promotion, even if they are facing an inquiry or prosecution, and that a blanket ban on their consideration was impermissible. The court also held that the punishment imposed on an employee cannot be the sole basis for declaring them unfit for promotion, and that the competent authority must objectively consider the employee's record and the reasons for the punishment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, challenged the vires of a circular issued by the government that barred the DPC from considering the cases of government servants facing departmental inquiries or criminal prosecution for promotion. The petitioner also challenged the pendency of departmental inquiries against him without any final order being passed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the circular was ultra vires to the relevant service rules and that the DPC has the discretion to assess the suitability of a government servant for promotion, even if they are facing an inquiry or prosecution. The court also held that the punishment imposed on an employee cannot be the sole basis for declaring them unfit for promotion, and that the competent authority must objectively consider the employee's record and the reasons for the punishment.
Issues: 1. Whether the circular issued by the government, which barred the DPC from considering the cases of government servants facing departmental inquiries or criminal prosecution for promotion, was ultra vires to the relevant service rules? 2. Whether the punishment imposed on an employee can be the sole basis for declaring them unfit for promotion?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the circular was ultra vires to the relevant service rules because it completely took away the discretion of the DPC and the appointing authority, including the government, to consider the cases of government servants facing departmental inquiries or criminal prosecution for promotion. The court held that the DPC has the discretion to assess the suitability of a government servant for promotion, even if they are facing an inquiry or prosecution, and that a blanket ban on their consideration was impermissible. 2. The court held that the punishment imposed on an employee cannot be the sole basis for declaring them unfit for promotion. The court held that the competent authority must objectively consider the employee's record and the reasons for the punishment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, declared the circular ultra vires, and directed the government to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion in light of the observations made in the judgment.
JUDGMENT
1. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the vires of Circular dated 17.7.1989 as well as the order dated 7.11.1990 in so far as it relates to promotion of respondent No. 2 on the post of Superintending Engineer (Irrigation). He has also prayed for issuance of a direction for his promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheets dated 11.3.1986, 18.10.1985,8.6.1987, and the order dated 22.12.1986/1.6.1987.
2. Facts which are necessary for decision of the writ petition are that the petitioner joined service as Demonstrator in Civil Engineering in Jodhpur Polytechnic in the year 1958. He was then transferred as Junior Engineer (Civil) in Rajasthan Canal Project. In November, 1963 he was promoted as Assistant Engineer and thereafter he was promoted as Executive Engineer in the month of November, 1975 on the basis of recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC').
3. One adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1972-73 was communicated to him but the same was empugned pursuant to a representation submitted by him against the said adverse remarks. A departmental enquiry was held against him under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 1958 Rules') on the basis of a memorandum dated 11.3.1986. The allegations of supervisory negligence and making of incorrect statements in the Court regarding preparation of accounts were levelled against him. These charges related to the period of his working between 26.1.1966 and 30.11.1967. After a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner, an order dated 1.6.1987 was passed by the State Government imposing a penalty of withholding of one grade increment without cumulative effect. A second memorandum dated 8.6.1987 was issued against him under Rule 16 of 1958 Rules in respect of the allegations pertaining to the incident of the period between 19.3.1976 to 30.9.1976, while the petitioner was holding the . post of Executive Engineer, The allegations contained in the memorandum dated 8.6.1987 also relates to supervisory negligence of the petitioner, which allegedly led to misappropriation of tiles and bricks by some Junior Engineers. A detailed reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 3.9.1987. According to the petitioner, Chairman and Secretary of Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna (for short 'IGNP') issued UD Note No. F. 2(14) RCDP/82/385 dated 3.10.1986 and observed that the charge-sheets for excess consumption of coal to be withdrawn and charge-sheet for difference of quality in tiles and bricks may be modified and issued under Rule 17 of 1958 Rules instead of Rule 16. This document has been placed on record as Annexure 6. Yet another charge-sheet dated 18.10.1985 came to be issued against the petitioner under Rule 17 of 1958 Rules vide memorandum dated 18.10.1985. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner in the year 1986 but no order has been passed. Incident with respect to which charges have been levelled against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 18.10.1985 related to the period between February 1981 to October, 1981. The charge-sheet has been issued after 41/2 years of the commission/omission of alleged acts of delinquency and the Government has failed to decide the matter for last more than 4 years after filing of reply.
4. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this court in the matter of his promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. It was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3331/90 Het Ram Dudi v. State of Rajasthan and another . This writ petition was disposed of on 10.8.1990 (Annexure 10) with the observations that the petitioner's case will be considered as regards promotion to the next higher post on merits in accordance with the Rules. The DPC met sometime in the year 1990 and on its recommendations as many as 11 persons have been promoted. Respond
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
