$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P (C) 1224/2021

SATYA PRAKASH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Petitioner in person.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Sr.

Panel Counsel with Mr. Amit

Gupta, GP and Mr. Kautilya

Birat, Advocate for R-1.

Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Advocate

for R-2 and 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

TALWANT SINGH, J.:

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for quashing and

setting aside the judgement/order dated 21.10.2020 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’), Principal Bench, New Delhi in

OA No. 3111/2015 and consequently, for allowing the prayers made in the

said OA.

2. Arguments have been heard.

3. Both the sides have also filed written submissions.

4. Our considered view is as under:

4.1

The case of the petitioner has been summed up in order of this Court

2022:DHC:3567-DB

dated 25.03.2021 as under:

“4. (i) the present case has a chequered history and this petition

arises from the order of dismissal of fifth OA preferred by the

petitioner before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT),

Principal Bench, New Delhi;

(ii) the petitioner was charge sheeted but the Inquiry Officer

reported the charges to have not been proved; the Disciplinary

Authority however disagreed with the report of the Inquiry

Officer and imposed punishment on the petitioner; on the

petitioner preferring the departmental appeal, the punishment

imposed was enhanced by the Appellate Authority; OA

preferred by the petitioner thereagainst was allowed and the

matter remanded to the Inquiring Officer, from the stage of

cross-examination;

(iii) the said remanded proceedings resulted in re-imposition of

the same punishment as had been imposed earlier by the

Appellate Authority; in the departmental appeal, the punishment

imposed was modified; the second OA preferred, was allowed

and the matter remanded to the Inquiry Officer;

(iv) the said remanded proceeding again resulted in punishment,

though this time a different one and the appeal preferred

thereagainst was dismissed; this resulted in the third OA being

preferred and which was again allowed and this time the matter

remanded to the Appellate Authority;

(v) the Appellate Authority passed a fresh order and against

which the fourth OA was preferred, which was dismissed by

CAT and the review application preferred thereagainst was also

dismissed;

(vi) W.P.(C) No.8086/2014 preferred against the order aforesaid

in the fourth OA was however allowed and the matter again

remanded to the Disciplinary Authority;

(vii) the remanded proceedings resulted in the punishment of

censure being meted out to the petitioner; the said order attained

2022:DHC:3567-DB

finality;

(viii) the OA from which this appeal arises, being the fifth in

chronology, was preferred claiming that the petitioner ought to

have been promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk

(UDC), from 17^th February, 2006, when his juniors were

promoted but was in fact promoted with effect from 23rd

November, 2016; and,

(ix) that CAT, in the impugned order has accepted the stand of

the respondents that the petitioner was free from vigilance, only

on 23^rd November, 2016 and was not exonerated but censured

prior to the same and thus no fault could be found with the

promotion having been granted with effect from 23rd

November, 2016.”

4.2

Notice was not issued but the learned counsel for the respondents

appeared on advance notice and he was heard.

4.3

The only challenge before the Tribunal was confined to the claim of

the petitioner that he ought to have been promoted to the post of Upper

Division Clerk (UDC) with effect from 17.02.2006, the date on which his

junior LDCs were promoted but in the case of the petitioner, he was

promoted with effect from 23.11.2016 only on the ground that in an enquiry

initia