Order (Oral)
BY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER(J)
1. This O.A., which is otherwise cognizable by a DB, has been taken up for disposal on consensual basis. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents is under instructions to state that respondent No. 2 adopts the counter already filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 3. In support of the averment made, learned counsel has placed on record a copy of communication dated 12.03.2012 addressed by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension to the Secretary, Ministry of Communications and I.T., Deptt. Of Posts.
3. It is apparent, from a conjunctive perusal of the pleas raised by the parties, that the promotion/posting orders in favour of the applicant herein (and a host of others who are not a party to the case) came to be issued vide order dated 17.11.2011(Annexure A-1). The promotions to Postal Service Group-B grade were relatable to the year 2011. The appointment, by promotion was ‘on regular basis in Postal Service Group-B with effect from the date of assumption of charge and until further orders’. The implementation thereof, however, came to be withheld qua the applicant on account of surfacing, in the meantime, of a charge-sheet against him. It is apparent, from a perusal of para 4(iii) of the counter, that the enquiry proceedings came to be contemplated only on 23.11.2011 (Annexure A-3) (‘Before the posting order of the applicant could have been issued and materialized, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 against the applicant were contemplated vide memo dated 23.11.2011 (Annexure A-3)’.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the withholding of promotion in the indicated manner is authorized by the instructions dated 14.09.1992 (Annexure R-1) issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training. Reliance, in particular, has been placed upon clause 7 thereof, which is extracted hereunder.
“A Government servant, who is recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee but in whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 of above arise after the recommendations of the DPC are received but before he is actually promoted, will be considered as if his case had been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC. He shall not be promoted until he is completely exonerated of the charges against him and the provisions contained in this O.M. will be applicable in his case also”.
5. It would be apparent, from a perusal of the extraction in the preceding para, that it conceptualizes an eventuality wherein the departmental proceedings surface during the period intervening the recommendation ‘for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee’ and ‘before he is actually promoted’. In the present case, it is the promotion orders as such, which came to be issued on 17.11.2011. The ‘surfacing’ of the departmental proceedings has not taken place during the period intervening the recommendation by DPC and the grant of actual promotion to the applicant. In fact, the DPC recommendations had already been accepted and the applicant promoted (vide order dated 17.11.2011) on point of fact when the competent authority ‘contemplated’ the holding of the enquiry on 23.11.2011. The disciplinary proceedings contemplated on 23.11.2011 could not, therefore, validly impede the implementation of the promotion orders (Annexure A-1).
6. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this O.A. shall stand allowed. The respondents are directed to implement the order dated 17.11.2011 forthwith.
7. There shall be no order as to costs of the cause in the facts and circumstances of the case.