Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 14039
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
NEERAJ TIWARI
VANDANA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
WRIA/6302/2022
Departmental proceedings cannot be treated as initiated without the issuance of a charge sheet.
Headnote:
PROMOTION - DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - INITIATION
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a government employee, was issued a show cause notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (Rules, 1999) in 2012. She replied to the notice in 2012 and was subsequently promoted twice. In 2022, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner Grade-I, but the petitioner's name was not considered due to the pendency of the show cause notice. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the non-consideration of her name for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that departmental proceedings cannot be treated as initiated without the issuance of a charge sheet. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, which held that disciplinary/criminal proceedings commence only when a charge memo or charge sheet is issued. The court also noted that the petitioner had not been suspended or issued a charge sheet as of the date of the DPC meeting.
Issues: Whether departmental proceedings can be treated as initiated without the issuance of a charge sheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that departmental proceedings cannot be treated as initiated without the issuance of a charge sheet. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, which held that disciplinary/criminal proceedings commence only when a charge memo or charge sheet is issued.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to hold a DPC and consider the petitioner's name for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner Grade-I within two months. The court also directed that if the petitioner is found suitable for promotion, she shall be given seniority from the date her juniors were promoted.
1
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6302 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vandana Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Chandra,Ankur Jaiswal,Sangam
Singh,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Sangam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.
Present petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent authorities to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of
Additional Commissioner Grade-I (Commercial Tax) with effect from the
date, her juniors were promoted i.e. on 7.4.2022.
Learned Senior Advocate submitted that petitioner was initially
appointed on the post of Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, she was
promoted on the post of Deputy Commissioner on 31.12.2008. He next
submitted that show cause notice dated 2.2.2012 was issued against the
petitioner under Section 10(2) of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline
& Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1999), which
was replied by the petitioner on 15.6.2012. Thereafter, no further
communication has been made by the respondents. After issuance of the
show cause notice dated 2.2.2012, petitioner was promoted twice firstly
on 31.12.2012 on the post of Joint Commissioner and secondly on
6.6.2017 on the post of Additional Commissioner Grade-II.
He further submitted that meeting of Departmental Promotion
Committee (in short DPC) for promotion on the post of Additional
Commissioner Grade-I was held on 14.01.2022 and juniors to petitioner
2
have been granted promotion w.e.f. 7.4.2022, but the name of petitioner
has not been considered. Being enquired by the respondent authorities, it
is informed that due to pendency of show cause notice dated 2.2.2012
under Section 10(2) of Rules, 1999, her name has not been considered for
promotion. He also submitted that petitioner had already submitted reply
of the very same notice on 15.6.2012 and thereafter she was promoted on
the post of Joint Commissioner and Additional Commissioner Grade-II,
therefore, there is no occasion for the respondents not to consider her
name for promotion on the post of Additional Commissioner Grade-I. He
next submitted that after 10 years vide order dated 4.2.2022, respondent
no.2 has initiated departmental proceedings and also issued charge sheet
on 30.3.2022 against the petitioner. He firmly submitted that till the
issuance of charge sheet, departmental proceeding cannot be treated to be
initiated. Further, on the date of DPC i.e. 14.1.2022, neither charge sheet
was issued against the petitioner nor she was ever suspended from the
service. He lastly submitted that aforesaid impugned order dated 4.2.2022
as well as charge sheet dated 30.3.2022 are also under challenge before
this Court in Writ-A No. 15359 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated
3.1.2023 has stayed the same.
In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the
judgment of Apex Court as well as this Court in the matter of Union of
India vs. K.V. Jankiraman reported in AIR 1991 SCC 2010 and
Yogendra Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-A No.
6422 of 2021.
He reiterated that upto the issuance of charge sheet dated
30.3.2022, departmental proceedings cannot be treated to be initiated
coupled with this fact that after issuance of very same notice dated
2.2.2012, petitioner was promoted twice, therefore, writ of mandamus
may be issued to respondent authorities to hold DPC and consider the
3
name of petitioner for promotion on the post of Additional Commissioner
Grade-I.
Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the submission
and submitted that once the notice dated 2.2.2012 has been issued under
Section 10(2) of Rules, 1999, departmental proceedings should have been
treated to be initiated, but he could not dispute the other facts such as
prom
