Complete exoneration from disciplinary charge mandates opening of sealed promotion cover and granting notional promotion.

ORDER

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

The applicant while working as Sub Divisional Inspector (Posts) was served with a charge memorandum on 04.10.2011 and resultantly penalty was awarded to him. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal which was decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.06.2016 to conduct de-novo proceedings from the stage of production of documents and in de-novo proceedings, he was exonerated from all the charges.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the applicant being in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices was considered by the DPC and the recommendation of the DPC was kept in sealed cover but after exoneration from the charges, the respondents did not follow the procedure and instead to open sealed cover, they issued another charge memorandum and imposed the applicant with penalty of Censure vide order dated 12.12.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that based on this penalty which has no relation to the earlier departmental proceeding, the respondents did not followed the procedure for sealed cover and vide order dated 20.08.2019 promoted the respondent no. 5, who is junior to the applicant, to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices without considering the name of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that it is settled proposition of law that if the name of the delinquent employee is considered and recommendation of the DPC is kept in sealed cover on account of pending departmental proceeding, the sealed cover must be opened after complete exoneration of the employee from all charges and notional promotion should be given to the employee from the date on which his junior is promoted.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors – (1991) 4 SCC 109 and submitted that since the recommendation of the DPC in the case of the applicant was kept in sealed cover, it was to be opened immediately after the exoneration from the charges and the second charge sheet, which had no relation to the earlier proceedings, cannot be made basis not to open the sealed cover. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the OA may be allowed and relief may be granted to the applicant.

5. Per contra, the respondents have filed and referring to the contents of the reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant while working as Sub Divisional Inspector (Post) was suspended with effect from 27.04.2011 forenoon vide his Memo dated 26.04.2011 which was revoked on 28.05.2012 and during suspension period, he was served with a charge sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 vide Memo dated 04.10.2011. Consequently, he was awarded punishment of reduction in pay by three stages from 11470/- to 10710/ in the time scale of pay Rs.9300-34800/- (PB2) for a period of three years with immediate effect vide Memo dated 03.02.2014. However, as consequence of the appellate order, a De-novo proceeding from the stage of production of documents was conducted and the applicant was exonerated from all charges vide Memo dated 05.02.2018 and his suspension period was regularized.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that another charge sheeted under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 was served upon the applicant vide Memo dated 12.12.2018 and he was awarded with punishment of Censure vide Memo dated 12.02.2019. Thus, the disciplinary case was pending against the applicant