IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2917 of 2009
------
The Director, now re-designated as Commissioner,
NVS, IGI Stadium I... ... ..... ........ ... ..... Petitioner
Versus
1.Baldeo Singh Manes
2.The Union of India
3.The Ministry of Human Resources Development and Charmain,
NVS Department of Secondary Education & Higher Education
4.The Additional Secretary, HRD Deptt ... ........ Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan
For the Respondents : Mr.
------
6/ 17.03.2010
By this application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner, the Union of India, has
challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 137 of 2006 whereby it has set
aside the order of penalty of withholding one annual increment
passed against the petitioner in a departmental proceeding.
2. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the
respondent No. 1, who is a teacher, was subjected to an enquiry on
the charge of misconduct alleging that he had held the hand of lady
teacher, Ms. Richa Srivastava. The enquiry was conducted by a
committee which came to a conclusion that there was no substance
in the allegation made against the respondent and the lady-
complainant was instigated to file the complaint against the
respondent. In the departmental proceeding the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report holding that nothing was proved against the
delinquent in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has recorded that
since there are contradictions in the statements of Ms. Srivastava
and also due to lack of direct and circumstantial evidences, the
charges are not proved. In spite of these finding recorded by
Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of
withholding one annual increment. The Tribunal after considering
the entire evidence set aside the order of punishment passed by
the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal, further directed that the
case of the respondent-delinquent for promotion should be
considered forthwith.
3. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
the Central Government, assailed that part of the direction given by
the Tribunal for considering the case of the respondent for
promotion. According to the learned counsel while issuing such
direction the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. From the order
passed by the Tribunal, it appears that during the pendency of the
departmental proceeding the name of the respondent was
recommended for promotion but in view of the pendency of the
proceeding his name was kept in sealed cover.
4. If that is the admitted position then no illegality has
been committed in directing the respondent to open the sealed
cover and implement the recommendation made by the
departmental promotion committee in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid observation, this application is
dismissed.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
( Pradeep Kumar, J)
Alankar/
