W.P.(C) 6303/2004Page 1 of 6

$~7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 26^th March, 2019

+

W.P.(C) 6303/2004

K.K.KHARBANDA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Meenu Mainee, Advocate.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1.

Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby

quashing the order of the respondents in terms of which the case of the

petitioner has been placed in a sealed cover and further giving directions to

the respondents to open the sealed cover and release promotion of the

petitioner, if selected from the date from which his juniors had been

promoted with all consequential benefits.

2.

The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as an

L.D.C. under the respondents on 14.12.1967 and thereafter, he got regular

promotions and finally he was promoted as a Section Officer on 12.12.1979.

The petitioner was eligible for the next post of Assistant Director

2019:DHC:1767

W.P.(C) 6303/2004Page 2 of 6

(Non-Technical) in grade ₹. 8,000-13,500/- which post is filled up in order

of merit-cum-seniority. The D.P.C. for promotion to the post of Assistant

Director was conducted in December 2000 and eligible Section Officers

were considered and respondents issued order dated 04.01.2001 whereby

Shri. J. Chanda, Smt. Neena Sadhana and T. B. Choudhary were promoted

to the post of Assistant Directors in the pay scale mentioned above. Out of

these three, Shri T.B. Choudhary was junior to the petitioner as per seniority

list dated 01.09.2000, wherein T.B. Choudhary was at SL. No. 5, while the

petitioner was at SL. No. 4.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the

respondents vide letter dated 28.03.2001 informed the petitioner that sealed

cover procedure has been adopted due to vigilance case against him.

Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation stating that according to

his information, there is no vigilance case against him nor any charge sheet

has been served upon him and therefore, his name should not have been

ignored by the D.P.C., as per the law.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits

that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 18/20.07.2001, whereas

promotion were effected on 04.01.2001, thus, on the said date, there was no

2019:DHC:1767

W.P.(C) 6303/2004Page 3 of 6

charge-sheet against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that if there is

no charge-sheet on the date of convening of D.P.C. for promotion, the

promotion cannot be ignored to that candidate but the same is happened in

the case of the petitioner.

5.

To strengthen her arguments, counsel for the petitioner has relied

upon the case of Union of India vs. K. B. Jankiraman 1991-4 SCC 109

whereby full Bench of the Supreme Court has held that it is only when a

charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal

prosecution is issued to the employee in that case it can be said that the

department proceedings/ criminal prosecution is initiated against the

employee.

6.

Learned counsel submits that since the DPC was convened on

04.01.2001 and charge-sheet was issued on 18/20.07.2001, therefore there

was no question to put the case of the petitioner in a sealed cover, hence the

impugned order deserves to be set aside.

7.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent submits that it is not in dispute that Mr. T. B. Choudhary was

junior to the petitioner, but CBI had registered a case RC-17 (A)/94-DLI

dated 09.03.1994 under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sec.

2019:DHC:1767

W.P.(C) 6303/2004Page 4 of 6

13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against the petitioner, amongst others.

Moreover, the Central Vigilance Commission also advise