JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Issue Rule. With consent, matter was finally heard.
2. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions to the respondent (hereafter NDPL) to consider his case for two time bound promotions w.e.f. 01.10.92 and 13.03.99 respectively in terms of an order of the erstwhile DESU (subsequently succeded to by the DVB) dated 16.07.92 and the order dated 23.07.97 as amended later. Consequential directions to release arrears of salary and emoluments have also been sought.
3. The petitioner, a permanent employee working with the NDPL from the year 1968, was promoted to the post of Inspector; he was confirmed on 15.01.92.
4. A scheme was introduced on 16.07.1992 (‘the 1992 scheme’) to relieve the stagnation of employees. Those employees/officers in service, who had completed 11 years of services were allowed benefits and given scale of pay upon completion of requisiteperiod of service. It is averred that the petitioner had completed 11 years of service as on 13.03.92 and was therefore entitled to the financial upgradation under the scheme. This was apparently not given on account of the scheme having been kept inabeyance.
5. The DPC met on 22nd October 1997 to consider the cases of those eligible for the benefit of financial upgradation under the 1992 scheme. The petitioner, however, had been issued a charge sheet on 4th September 1997. The disciplinary authority droppeproceedings/charge sheet, in 2001. Subsequently, two Departmental Promotion Committees apparently met to consider the cases of eligible candidates, who were to be recommended for the higher grade/scale of pay under the scheme. The petitioner was issuewith two other charge sheets dated 18.12.98 and 21.07.2001.
6. The subsequent two charge sheets resulted in passing of certain minor penalties; the second charge sheet (dated 18.12.98) resulted in passing of a censure order on 31.05.2000. The last chargesheet dated 21.07.2001 resulted in findings that led to an oder of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect, being passed on 05.12.2001.
7. With the advent of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act 2000 and formulation of the transfer scheme, which became effective on 01.07.2002, the petitioner’s services were assigned to the NDPL where he is presently working. NDPL is a party to these proceeings.
8. The petitioner approached this Court in the year 2003 complaining of non-consideration of his case for financial upgradation under the 1992 scheme, which had been continued with its existing modifications and applied by the NDPL. After notice was issud, both the NDPL as well as Delhi Transco have filed counter affidavits.
9. During the course of the proceedings, the Delhi Transco Ltd. was asked to produce the records since the counsel for NDPL had submitted that all the relevant records were with that organisation.
10. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, counsel for respondent No.1/Delhi Transco, has produced the records today. They reveal that the petitioner’s case for grant of financial upgradation under the 1992 scheme was in fact not considered in the year 1997. The only reasogiven by the appropriate authority/Committee in that regard was that the petitioner was facing vigilance proceedings on account of the first charge sheet dated 4th September 1997. The latter years also reveal a similar if not worse picture. The Committee has not granted any ranking nor even indicated whether he is fit for financial upgradation. All the records were handed over to counsel for NDPL.
11. I have heard counsel for the parties. The decision of the Supreme Court in K.V. Janaka Raman’s case outlining the sealed cover procedure, which was adopted by the erstwhile DVB through its policies, (and has been also applied by theNDPL) is to the effect that an officer facing a departmental proceeding will not be denied consideration of his case for promotion/financial upgradation by the appropriate authority/Departmental Committee. In such cases, the procedure is that the officers name and records would be considered and the result kept in a sealed cover which would be opened after the passing of the final order by the disciplinary authority.
12. Having regard to the above and considering the state of the record, I am of the view that the respondent have surely failed in their duties as per the scheme as well as in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The record relating tthe DPC of the year 1997 indicates that the DPC did not even consider it fit to look into the records of the petitioner; it was kept aside on the ground that he was facing an inquiry. However, the subsequent DPC of the year 2001 is slightly better in te sense that the petitioner’s record was apparently noticed but his case was neither recommended nor declined.
13. In view of the above, the respondent NDPL is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for financial upgradation, under the 1992 scheme as of the year 1997 and 2001, respectively within a period of six weeks from today. In the event of the petitoner being found fit and entitled, suitable orders shall be passed four weeks thereafter.
14. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
