Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13744
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, A, Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, J
Shri Mukeshbhai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 | OA No.259/2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M.S.Trivedi
For the Respondents: Ms. R.R.Patel
A government employee acquitted in a criminal matter retains eligibility for associated benefits but must meet merit-based promotion criteria under sealed cover procedures.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Memorandum No.SAC/Estt./Pension/2016 - Claim for further promotions after acquittal in criminal proceedings denied - Action reviewed by appointing authority based on sealed cover procedure following CBI Court's judgment - Promotion granted retrospectively to Grade of Technician ‘G’ from 1.10.1995 - No legal infirmity found in denial of further promotions based on merit and residency period considerations. (Paras 1, 10-12)
(B) Administrative Procedure - Sealed Cover Procedure - Where criminal charges are pending, proceedings and promotions kept in sealed cover until resolution - Following acquittal, recommendations opened and acted upon, granting retrospective promotion only, without subsequent promotions, reflecting merit-based criteria. (Paras 10.1, 10.2)
(C) Res Judicata - Previous application (OA No.259/2015) similarly sought benefits which had been addressed in prior proceedings - Doctrine of res judicata applicable, and applicant barred from re-filing identical claims post-compliance of earlier order. (Paras 4.1, 7)
(D) Conclusion - Legal instructions dictated that further merits and assessments are necessary for promotions to higher grades - Court maintains valid decision-making process was applied regarding promotions under consideration. (Paras 10.2, 10.3)
ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Dr.Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 challenging the Memorandum No.SAC/Estt./Pension/2016 dated 30.3.2016 (Annexure A/1 refer) issued by respondent No.2, the Director, Indian Space Research Organization, Ahmedabad whereby his claim for grant of consequential benefits of further promotion(s) to the Grade of Technician and Sr. Technician after conclusion of criminal proceedings against him has been denied by the respondents on the ground that in compliance of the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.259/2015, his case was reviewed and had found that the appointing authority had already opened all the relevant sealed covers consequent CBI Court’s judgment dated 30.3.2013 and acted on the earliest favourable recommendations of the DPC as on the rationalized dated 1.4.1995 and applicant was promoted retrospectively to the grade of Tradesman ‘G’ (re-designated as Technician ‘G’) w.e.f. 1.10.1995 vide order dated 30.3.2015, hence, the applicant herein seeking following reliefs:-
“(A) That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this petition.
(B) That the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned action/memo No.SAC/Estt/Pension/2016 dated 30.03.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 not giving benefit of further promotion to the grade of Tradesman-G to the grade of Technician, Sr. Technician, till the date of his retirement.
(C) That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to grant/give benefits of further promotion from the post of Tradesman-G to the post of Technician, Sr. Technician and Technician-G with all consequential benefits and with 12% interest thereon.”
2. Learned counsel for the applicant mainly submitted as under:-
2.1 The applicant while working as a Tradesman-‘F’ (re- designated as Technician ‘F’) in the year 1995 in the Department of Space, Space Application Center, Ahmedabad, a Criminal Special Case No.34/2005 was registered against him by CBI on the charge of theft of Camera Tripod from DECU/SAC, Ahmedabad.
2.2 It is stated that during the pendency of the said criminal case, the applicant was called for Trade Test for promotion to the post of Tradesman-‘G’ Grade, Technician and Sr. Technician regularly by the respondents.
Further in this regard, it has been pleaded that vide communication dated 23.8.1999, the respondent no.2 published a schedule for practical test and interview along with a list of eligible employees of SAC and DECU for consideration for One Time Special Review as on 1.9.1999 and subsequent review as on 1.10.1999 and normal review for Technical Assistants (C) as on 1.10.1999. In the said list, the name of the applicant is placed at serial no.186 as Tradesman ‘F’ along with other Tradesman ‘F’ (Annexure A/4 refer).
2.3 It is stated that the office of respondent no.2 vide letter dated 19.12.2011 informed the applicant that as the disciplinary/vigilance clearance has not been accorded in his case, the DPC findings in respect of review of his case for promotion to the post of ‘Technician ‘G’’ as on 1.1.2012 has been kept under sealed cover (Annexure A/5 refer).
In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that since the Special Criminal Case registered against the applicant was pending against him the respondents had adopted the sealed cover procedure in his case in terms of the Circular of the DoP&T vide OM No.22022/4/91-Estt (A) dated 14.09.1992.
2.4 It is stated that during the pendency of the said criminal proceedings, i.e., Special Criminal Case No.34/2005 before the learned Special Court, CBI, the applicant on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 31.10.2012 as Tradesman ‘F’ (re-designated as Technician ‘F’).
2.5 Subsequently, vide judgment dated 30.3.2013, the CBI Court acquitted the applicant by giving benefits of reasonable doubts in the said case.
Therefore, the applicant had requested to op
