Shri Krishna Ram Vs. State of Bihar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service laws - promotion to rank of additional district magistrate, senior selection grade--denial of--propriety--petitioner belonging to bihar administrative service--was not promoted on 15.2.1991 when other members were promoted--charge-sheet was framed only on 15.12.1991--denying petitioner from promotion prior to 15.12.1991--illegal--disciplinary proceedings start from date charge is framed--in the instant case even after framing of charge disciplinary proceedings were delayed because of in action of government--mere fact that investigation was being done till 15.2.1991--not sufficient--denial of promotion on 15.12.1991--bad in law. - - for short). 4. the grievance of the petitioner is that till 15.2.1991, there was nothing against the petitioner and the charges were framed only on 15.12.1991 and, therefore, denial of promotion before framing of the charge is bad and illegal. however, after disposal of the departmental proceeding in 1995, the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered by the departmental promotion committee in its meeting held on 29.2.1996 and the petitioner's name has been recommended for promotion. the learned counsel submitted that in 1996, the petitioner's case was considered by the dpc and his name was recommended for promotion. 9. it is the specific case of the petitioner that it was only on 15.12.1991 when charges were framed against the petitioner and, therefore, denial of promotion before the aforesaid date is bad and illegal. 14. the law has been well settled by the apex court in the case of union of india and ors. 17. having regard to the facts and circumstances as well as the discussions made above, i am of the opinion that the denial of promotion to the petitioner in the year 1991 was illegal and unjustified. m.y. eqbal, j.1. in this writ application, the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in the rank of addl. district magistrate/senior selection grade, with effect from 1989-90 with all consequential benefits from the date when the persons junior to him have been promoted to the said grade.2. the petitioner is a member of the bihar administrative service and joined as sub-deputy collector in 1937 and he was notified as deputy collector in 1976. the petitioner was posted as the block development officer benipatti in the district of madhubani some time in the year 1985. it is stated that the mukhiya of the gram panchayat because of some ulterior motive reported some irregularities and on these allegation, a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner on 11.6.1986. thereafter a preliminary enquiry was set up and the petitioner was exonerated in the said preliminary enquiry. it is alleged that after sleeping for more than five years, on 15.12.1991 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on the same and similar charges and the petitioner replied to those charges. however, the respondents took no action for a long time and then on 24.2.1993, suspended the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the departmental enquiry. the petitioner's case is that the respondents were sitting tight over the matter and there was no progress in the proceeding. consequently, the petitioner challenged the said order of his suspension by filing cwjc no. 161 of 1994 (r) and this court vide order 27.4.1994 revoked the order of suspension and the departmental proceeding, subject to the condition that if it is not completed within four months from the date of the order.3. the petitioner's further case is that in 1986, the petitioner was promoted to junior selection grade vide order dated 17.2.1986. it is alleged that the recommendation for promoting officers of the bihar administrative service to senior selection grade was issued on 1.2.1991 and several persons including respondent no. 4 has been promoted, but the petitioner's name was not there in the list of promotion or in the pending list, nor in any suitable list, meaning thereby that the case of the petitioner was not considered by the departmental promotion committee (hereinafter to be referred to as the d.p.c. for short).4. the grievance of the petitioner is that till 15.2.1991, there was nothing against the petitioner and the charges were framed only on 15.12.1991 and, therefore, denial of promotion before framing of the charge is bad and illegal. it is stated that again in the year 1993, the dpc considered the case of the officers for promotion to the senior selection grade, but the case of the petitioner was not considered because of the pendency of the departmental proceeding. the petitioner, therefore, claimed his promotion with effect from 1991 when persons junior to him have been given promotion.5. the respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that the case of promotion of the petitioner and other officers of his batch was for the first time taken for consideration in the year 1991 when the meeting of the dpc was held on 9.8.1991. it is stated that due to the pendency of the charges against the petitioner, his case was not considered for promotion. however, after disposal of the departmental proceeding in 1995, the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered by the departmental promotion committee in its meeting held on 29.2.1996 and the petitioner's name has been recommended for promotion. the respondents have further stated that when the petitioner was posted as the block development officer, benipatti, madhubani the secretary to the commissioner, darbhanga division, reported serious charges regarding serious irregularities committed by the petitioner with regard to implementation of the scheme meant for scheduled castes and also regarding the misuse of government fund and after obtaining explanation from the petitioner, opinion of the district magistrate, madhubani, was called and after receiving the same, the matter was examined and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. therefore, the petitioner was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him.in the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents, it is further stated that pursuant to the order and direction of this court in cwjc no. 161 of 1994 (r), resolution dated 5.8.1994 was issued and the divisional commissioner, darbhanga was appointed as the enquiry officer. the departmental proceeding could not be concluded within the stipulated period. however, the enquiry was ultimately concluded and the finding was forwarded by the commissioner, darbhanga division, vice his letter no. 6159. after receiving the finding of the conducting officer, the matter was thoroughly examined and put up before the government for obtaining final order.6. mr. a.k. sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has made two fold submissions. learned counsel firstly submitted that admittedly, no departmental proceeding was pending on 9.8.1991 when other officers junior to the petitioner were promoted and the case of the petitioner was not considered. it was submitted that the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner only on 15.12.1991 and, therefore, it cannot be said that any departmental proceeding was pending. according to the learned counsel, the departmental proceedings start from the date when the charge-sheet is served on the officer concerned. in this connection, the learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the apex court in the cases of: (i) managing director, u.p. warehousing corporation and ors. v. vijay narayan vajpayee : (1980)illj222sc and new bank of india v. n.p. sehgal and anr. (1992) 1 pljr 27 : (1991) 1 jt 498. learned counsel secondly submitted that the preliminary enquiry is a fact finding enquiry and it cannot be characterised as departmental enquiry and in any view of the matter, the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily did not consider the partitioner's case for promotion.7. on the other side, mr. merathia, learned government pleader no. 2, submitted that since 1986, the petitioner was subjected to preliminary enquiry and the departmental enquiry and, therefore, he was rightly not given promotion till 1995 when the departmental proceeding was finally concluded. the learned counsel submitted that in 1996, the petitioner's case was considered by the dpc and his name was recommended for promotion. the learned counsel produced before me the proceedings of the dpc and drawn my attention to the list showing that the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion, but he was not given promotion because of proposed charges pending against him.8. from pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the only question falls for consideration is whether the denial of promotion to the petitioner on 9.8.1991 when other persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted is justified or not. in other words, whether with-holding promotion of the petitioner on 9.8.1991 on the ground of some charges pending against him is legal and valid.9. it is the specific case of the petitioner that it was only on 15.12.1991 when charges were framed against the petitioner and, therefore, denial of promotion before the aforesaid date is bad and illegal. it is the admitted fact that respondent no. 4 and other persons are juniors to the petitioner and they were given promotion in 1991. it appears that after the charge-sheet was served on 15.12.1991 the petitioner filed his show cause in april, 1992, and thereafter on 24.2.1993 the petitioner was put under suspension, but the departmental proceeding could not be concluded for a long time. consequently, the petitioner filed cwjc no. 161 of 1994 (r) challenging the order of suspension. the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 27.4.1994, the relevant portion whereof is as under:..accordingly, we direct the respondents that it the respondents want to proceed with the departmental proceeding, the same should be concluded and disposed of within four months from today subject to the condition that the petitioner must cooperate with the day to day departmental proceeding. if the departmental proceeding is not concluded within the time aforesaid, the suspension shall stand revoked and departmental proceeding stand quashed. let it be recorded that this order is passed in presence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. this application is disposed of accordingly.10. in the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been categorically stated that the departmental proceeding was not concluded within the time fixed by this court in the aforesaid order. it is stated that pursuant to the direction of this court the divisional commissioner, darbhanga, was appointed as enquiry officer by resolution dated 5.8.1994 and the departmental proceeding against the petitioner could be initiated only on 5.8.1994 due to the delay in obtaining the orders of the government for going ahead with the departmental proceeding. it is further stated that the departmental proceeding was started from 25.10.1994 by the conducting officer and it was concluded on 28.12.1994 and the finding was forwarded by the commissioner, darbhanga division, vide his letter dated 6.1.1995, which was received in the department on 18.1.1995. after receiving the finding of the conducting officer, the matter was thoroughly examined and put up before the government for obtaining final order, which could be obtained and resolution was issued on 6.2.1995 awarding 'censure' to the petitioner. it is further stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that those juniors against whom there was no allegation were given promotion and since the departmental proceeding has now been concluded, the petitioner has been promoted in the senior selection grade and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner has been fulfilled.11. however, in the first counter-affidavit it was stated that when the petitioner was posted as block development officer, benipatti, in madhubani district, some charges regarding irregularities committed by the petitioner was reported and explanation was called for from the petitioner. the comment of the district magistrate, madhubani, was also called for and after receiving the same, the matter was thoroughly examined and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and consequently the petitioner was put under suspension.12. when the matter was heard on 3.4.1997, learned state counsel was directed to produce he minutes of the dpc held on 9.8.1991, 3.4.1993 and other dates in order to find out as to whether the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion. the said minutes of the dpc was produced. from perusal of which it appears that on 9.8.1991 the meeting of the dpc was held and the case of the petitioner was also placed for consideration. however, the petitioner was not given promotion on the ground that the proposed charges is pending. in the meeting of the dpc held on 3.4.1993 again the petitioner was denied promotion because of his suspension and in the meeting of the dpc on 24.11.1993 the petitioner was denied promotion on the ground of pendency of the departmental proceeding.13. so far the denial of promotion of the petitioner in the year 1993-94 are concerned, it was rightly kept pending because of the fact that the petitioner was under suspension and the departmental proceeding was pending. but admittedly on 9.8.1991 when the meeting of the dpc was held and persons junior to the petitioner were promoted, the petitioner's case was kept pending on the ground of some proposed charges. as noticed above, for the first time charges were served on the petitioner on 5.12.1991 and before that neither any departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner, nor any charge-sheet was served on him. it is rather surprising that in december, 1991, charge-sheet was served and after more than one year the petitioner was put under suspension on 24.2.1993. the petitioner remained under suspension for about one year, but the departmental proceeding was not started and the petitioner had to rush to this court. despite the direction of this court in the order dated 27.4.1994 to conclude the departmental proceeding within four months, the departmental proceeding, according to the own case of the respondents concluded in one year, i.e. on 6.2.1995 and resulted in awarding only 'censure' to the petitioner. in this way because of the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner was denied promotion for a long period of four years.14. the law has been well settled by the apex court in the case of union of india and ors. v. k.v. jankiraman and ors. : (1991)iillj570sc , which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the disciplinary proceeding or criminal proceeding can be said to have commenced when a charge memo in disciplinary proceeding or charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee. the pendency of the preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to keep the case of the concerned employee pending.in this regard a passage of the judgment of the apex court in the aforesaid case is worth to be quoted hereinbelow:the pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. we are in agreement with the tribunal on this point. the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion increment etc. does not impress us. the acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. as has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations takes an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. many times they never result in the issue of charge-memo/charge-sheet. if the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily, it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. what is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure.15. applying the principles of law laid down by the suprme court, i find that if some serious charges against the petitioner were pending before 9.8.1991, he could have been suspended, but it was only in april, 1993 the petitioner was put under suspension. since neither any charge-sheet was served nor any departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner on 9.8.1991 when the petitioner was denied promotion by the dpc, i am of the opinion that such denial of the peomotion to the petitioner was neither legal nor justified. in the case of new bank of india (supra) also, the apex court held that in absence of specific charge framed against the government employee the promotion cannot be with-held.16. mr. merathia has very vehemently argued that some irregularities were committed in 1986 which resulted in serving the charge-sheet on 15.12.1991 and enquiry was done, which will be taken as continuation of the departmental proceeding. the submission of mr. merathia cannot be accepted in view of the settled propositions of law lald down by the apex court.17. having regard to the facts and circumstances as well as the discussions made above, i am of the opinion that the denial of promotion to the petitioner in the year 1991 was illegal and unjustified.18. in the result, this writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are hereby directed to consider the promotion of the petitioner with effect from the date when the persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted to the said grade. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In this writ application, the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in the rank of Addl. District Magistrate/Senior Selection Grade, with effect from 1989-90 with all consequential benefits from the date when the persons junior to him have been promoted to the said grade.

2. The petitioner is a member of the Bihar Administrative Service and joined as Sub-Deputy Collector in 1937 and he was notified as Deputy Collector in 1976. The petitioner was posted as the Block Development Officer Benipatti in the district of Madhubani some time in the year 1985. It is stated that the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat because of some ulterior motive reported some irregularities and on these allegation, a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner on 11.6.1986. Thereafter a preliminary enquiry was set up and the petitioner was exonerated in the said preliminary enquiry. It is alleged that after sleeping for more than five years, on 15.12.1991 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on the same and similar charges and the petitioner replied to those charges. However, the respondents took no action for a long time and then on 24.2.1993, suspended the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the departmental enquiry. The petitioner's case is that the respondents were sitting tight over the matter and there was no progress in the proceeding. Consequently, the petitioner challenged the said order of his suspension by filing CWJC No. 161 of 1994 (R) and this Court vide order 27.4.1994 revoked the order of suspension and the departmental proceeding, subject to the condition that if it is not completed within four months from the date of the order.

3. The petitioner's further case is that in 1986, the petitioner was promoted to junior selection grade vide order dated 17.2.1986. It is alleged that the recommendation for promoting officers of the Bihar Administrative Service to Senior Selection Grade was issued on 1.2.1991 and several persons including respondent No. 4 has been promoted, but the petitioner's name was not there in the list of promotion or in the pending list, nor in any suitable list, meaning thereby that the case of the petitioner was not considered by the departmental promotion committee (hereinafter to be referred to as the D.P.C. for short).

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that till 15.2.1991, there was nothing against the petitioner and the charges were framed only on 15.12.1991 and, therefore, denial of promotion before framing of the charge is bad and illegal. It is stated that again in the year 1993, the DPC considered the case of the officers for promotion to the senior selection grade, but the case of the petitioner was not considered because of the pendency of the departmental proceeding. The petitioner, therefore, claimed his promotion with effect from 1991 when persons junior to him have been given promotion.

5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that the case of promotion of the petitioner and other officers of his batch was for the first time taken for consideration in the year 1991 when the meeting of the DPC was held on 9.8.1991. It is stated that due to the pendency of the charges against the petitioner, his case was not considered for promotion. However, after disposal of the departmental proceeding in 1995, the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered by the departmental promotion committee in its meeting held on 29.2.1996 and the petitioner's name has been recommended for promotion. The respondents have further stated that when the petitioner was posted as the Block Development Officer, Benipatti, Madhubani the Secretary to the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, reported serious charges regarding serious irregularities committed by the petitioner with regard to implementation of the scheme meant for scheduled castes and also regarding the misuse of Government fund and after obtaining explanation from the petitioner, opinion of the District Magistrate, Madhubani, was called and after receiving the same, the matter was examined and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Therefore, the petitioner was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him.

In the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents, it is further stated that pursuant to the order and direction of this Court in CWJC No. 161 of 1994 (R), Resolution dated 5.8.1994 was issued and the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The departmental proceeding could not be concluded within the stipulated period. However, the enquiry was ultimately concluded and the finding was forwarded by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, vice his letter No. 6159. After receiving the finding of the Conducting Officer, the matter was thoroughly examined and put up before the Government for obtaining final order.

6. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has made two fold submissions. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that admittedly, no departmental proceeding was pending on 9.8.1991 when other officers junior to the petitioner were promoted and the case of the petitioner was not considered. It was submitted that the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner only on 15.12.1991 and, therefore, it cannot be said that any departmental proceeding was pending. According to the learned Counsel, the departmental proceedings start from the date when the charge-sheet is served on the officer concerned. In this connection, the learned Counsel has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of: (i) Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation and Ors. v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee : (1980)ILLJ222SC and New Bank of India v. N.P. Sehgal and Anr. (1992) 1 PLJR 27 : (1991) 1 JT 498. Learned Counsel secondly submitted that the preliminary enquiry is a fact finding enquiry and it cannot be characterised as departmental enquiry and in any view of the matter, the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily did not consider the partitioner's case for promotion.

7. On the other side, Mr. Merathia, learned Government Pleader No. 2, submitted that since 1986, the petitioner was subjected to preliminary enquiry and the departmental enquiry and, therefore, he was rightly not given promotion till 1995 when the departmental proceeding was finally concluded. The learned Counsel submitted that in 1996, the petitioner's case was considered by the DPC and his name was recommended for promotion. The learned Counsel produced before me the proceedings of the DPC and drawn my attention to the list showing that the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion, but he was not given promotion because of proposed charges pending against him.

8. From pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only question falls for consideration is whether the denial of promotion to the petitioner on 9.8.1991 when other persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted is justified or not. In other words, whether with-holding promotion of the petitioner on 9.8.1991 on the ground of some charges pending against him is legal and valid.

9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that it was only on 15.12.1991 when charges were framed against the petitioner and, therefore, denial of promotion before the aforesaid date is bad and illegal. It is the admitted fact that respondent No. 4 and other persons are juniors to the petitioner and they were given promotion in 1991. It appears that after the charge-sheet was served on 15.12.1991 the petitioner filed his show cause in April, 1992, and thereafter on 24.2.1993 the petitioner was put under suspension, but the departmental proceeding could not be concluded for a long time. Consequently, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 161 of 1994 (R) challenging the order of suspension. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 27.4.1994, the relevant portion whereof is as under:..

Accordingly, we direct the respondents that it the respondents want to proceed with the departmental proceeding, the same should be concluded and disposed of within four months from today subject to the condition that the petitioner must cooperate with the day to day departmental proceeding. If the departmental proceeding is not concluded within the time aforesaid, the suspension shall stand revoked and departmental proceeding stand quashed. Let it be recorded that this order is passed in presence of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This application is disposed of accordingly.

10. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been categorically stated that the departmental proceeding was not concluded within the time fixed by this Court in the aforesaid order. It is stated that pursuant to the direction of this Court the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga, was appointed as Enquiry Officer by Resolution dated 5.8.1994 and the departmental proceeding against the petitioner could be initiated only on 5.8.1994 due to the delay in obtaining the orders of the Government for going ahead with the departmental proceeding. It is further stated that the departmental proceeding was started from 25.10.1994 by the Conducting Officer and it was concluded on 28.12.1994 and the finding was forwarded by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, vide his letter dated 6.1.1995, which was received in the department on 18.1.1995. After receiving the finding of the Conducting Officer, the matter was thoroughly examined and put up before the Government for obtaining final order, which could be obtained and Resolution was issued on 6.2.1995 awarding 'censure' to the petitioner. It is further stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that those juniors against whom there was no allegation were given promotion and since the departmental proceeding has now been concluded, the petitioner has been promoted in the Senior Selection Grade and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner has been fulfilled.

11. However, in the first counter-affidavit it was stated that when the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer, Benipatti, in Madhubani district, some charges regarding irregularities committed by the petitioner was reported and explanation was called for from the petitioner. The comment of the District Magistrate, Madhubani, was also called for and after receiving the same, the matter was thoroughly examined and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and consequently the petitioner was put under suspension.

12. When the matter was heard on 3.4.1997, learned State Counsel was directed to produce he minutes of the DPC held on 9.8.1991, 3.4.1993 and other dates in order to find out as to whether the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion. The said minutes of the DPC was produced. From perusal of which it appears that on 9.8.1991 the meeting of the DPC was held and the case of the petitioner was also placed for consideration. However, the petitioner was not given promotion on the ground that the proposed charges is pending. In the meeting of the DPC held on 3.4.1993 again the petitioner was denied promotion because of his suspension and in the meeting of the DPC on 24.11.1993 the petitioner was denied promotion on the ground of pendency of the departmental proceeding.

13. So far the denial of promotion of the petitioner in the year 1993-94 are concerned, it was rightly kept pending because of the fact that the petitioner was under suspension and the departmental proceeding was pending. But admittedly on 9.8.1991 when the meeting of the DPC was held and persons junior to the petitioner were promoted, the petitioner's case was kept pending on the ground of some proposed charges. As noticed above, for the first time charges were served on the petitioner on 5.12.1991 and before that neither any departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner, nor any charge-sheet was served on him. It is rather surprising that in December, 1991, charge-sheet was served and after more than one year the petitioner was put under suspension on 24.2.1993. The petitioner remained under suspension for about one year, but the departmental proceeding was not started and the petitioner had to rush to this Court. Despite the direction of this Court in the order dated 27.4.1994 to conclude the departmental proceeding within four months, the departmental proceeding, according to the own case of the respondents concluded in one year, i.e. on 6.2.1995 and resulted in awarding only 'censure' to the petitioner. In this way because of the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner was denied promotion for a long period of four years.

14. The law has been well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman and Ors. : (1991)IILLJ570SC , which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the disciplinary proceeding or criminal proceeding can be said to have commenced when a charge memo in disciplinary proceeding or charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee. The pendency of the preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to keep the case of the concerned employee pending.

In this regard a passage of the judgment of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case is worth to be quoted hereinbelow:

The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations takes an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily, it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure.

15. Applying the principles of law laid down by the Suprme Court, I find that if some serious charges against the petitioner were pending before 9.8.1991, he could have been suspended, but it was only in April, 1993 the petitioner was put under suspension. Since neither any charge-sheet was served nor any departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner on 9.8.1991 when the petitioner was denied promotion by the DPC, I am of the opinion that such denial of the peomotion to the petitioner was neither legal nor justified. In the case of New Bank of India (supra) also, the Apex Court held that in absence of specific charge framed against the Government employee the promotion cannot be with-held.

16. Mr. Merathia has very vehemently argued that some irregularities were committed in 1986 which resulted in serving the charge-sheet on 15.12.1991 and enquiry was done, which will be taken as continuation of the departmental proceeding. The submission of Mr. Merathia cannot be accepted in view of the settled propositions of law Lald down by the Apex Court.

17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as well as the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the denial of promotion to the petitioner in the year 1991 was illegal and unjustified.

18. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are hereby directed to consider the promotion of the petitioner with effect from the date when the persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted to the said grade. There shall be no order as to costs.