Reserved (On 04.12.2025)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR Dated : This the ________ day of ______________ 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (J)

Hon’ble Ms Mallika Arya, Member (A) Original Application No. 649 of 2012 Anand Kumar Jain, S/o Shri S.L. Jain, Aged about 54 Years, Additional Collector, Khargoan (M.P.) 451001.

…….Applicant By Adv: Shri Sunil Rao proxy counsel for Shri S. Ganguly V E R S U S

1. Union of India, Department of Personnel & Training, through it's Secretary, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi. 110001

2. Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dhaulpur House, New Delhi.-110001

3. Principal Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Department, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.)- 462004

4. Shri Ashutosh Awasthi, Collector, Burhanpur (M.P.) 450331 PIYUSH 5. Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh,

PIYUSH Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.) 462004.

……..Respondents

By Adv: Shri S.P. Singh, Shri S.K. Mishra and Shri Divesh Jain

O R D E R

By Ms. Mallika Arya, AM The applicant is challenging the highhanded, arbitrary and malafide action of the respondents, whereby order dated 01.08.2011 has been issued by Respondent No. 1 for promotion of the State Civil Services officers to the IAS to the year 2008 ‘A’

and 2009.

2. The applicant is an officer of the State Administrative Services of MP Cadre and has been granted promotion and up- gradation in time. As per Regulation 5.1 of the existing Promotion Regulations the number of vacancies against which selection is to be made for a particular recruitment year for promotion to the IAS is determined by the Government of India / DOPT in consultation with the concerned State Government. A DPC was held on 23.06.2008 by the respondents whereby the promotions of the State Administrative officers of MP Cadre to the IAS for the year 2007 and 2008 were considered. In this DPC the applicant has PIYUSH CHANDRA been illegally superseded. Further the respondent authority’s

convened a Screening Committee meeting on 11.07.2011. A

copy of the proceeding of the DPC dated 11.07.2011 as received

by the applicant under RTI is annexed as Annexure A-2.

Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 issued the impugned notification No. 14015/13/2009-AIS (I)-A dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure A-1). The name of the applicant figured at Sl. No. 58 whereas the name of Respondent No. 4 is at Sl. No. 70 in the Gradation List of State Administrative Officers as on 01.04.2007 (Annexure A-3). Admittedly, the applicant was downgraded by the DPC held on 23.06.2008. It appears to the best of the knowledge of the applicant that a misleading report was forwarded by the State Govt. of MP to the Committee and the Committee did not apply its independent mind. The applicant has also mentioned that he was awarded a punishment of reduction of two increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 26.05.2010. The DPC proceeding (Annexure A-2) has taken note of the same. The said order was challenged before Hon’ble High Court at Indore in WP No. 6767/2010(S). Vide order dated 02.12.2011 the Hon’ble High Court quashed the order and granted consequential relief to the applicant. A copy of the punishment order dated 26.05.2010 and order of the Hon’ble High Court of MP at Indore is collectively PIYUSH CHANDRA PIYUSH marked as Annexure A-4. Apart from the above at no point of

time during the consideration years, any adverse remarks have

been communicated to him. The applicant is relying on the

judgment of Devdutt vs. Union of India and others reported in

(2008) 8 SCC 725 which states that remarks of the person concerned should have been communicated to the incumbent because in absence of the communication, a person may face civil consequence in his/her career. The applicant has also relied on the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdayal Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab reported in 1979 (2)

SCC 368

3. The applicant was graded ‘Very Good’ in the year 2007and graded