ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated 18.1.2001 issued by the respondents whereby the petitioner has been given promotion from E4 to E5 with effect from 30.8.2000 instead of 30.9.99 when other similarly situated employees of the respondent have been given promotion.
3. It appears that the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held in July, 1999 for the purpose of cluster promotion from E4 to E5. By office order dated 8.10.99 many similarly situated officers have been given promotion with effect from 30.9.99 whereas the case of the petitioner was not considered in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. However, on 10.11.99 a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner and on a departmental enquiry punishment of censure was inflicted upon him by office order dated 20.6.2000. Inspite of the same the respondents issued office order dated 18.1.2001 by which the petitioner was promoted from E4 to E5 but the said promotion was given effect to from 30.8.2000.
4. Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that admittedly no departmental proceeding was pending in July, 1999 when the case of promotion was being considered by the D.P.C. and also on the date, i.e. 8.10.99 when office order was issued giving promotion to other similarly situated persons ignoring the case of the petitioner. It was only thereafter on 10.11.99 a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. In this connection reliance was placed on two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors v. K.V. Janki Raman, reported in 1991 (4) SCC 109, and also in a decision reported in 1991 JT 498.
5. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed the proposition of law that a departmental proceeding commences when charge-sheet is served on the employee. However, Mr. Banerjee submitted that in terms of Rules of Coal India an Officer cannot be considered for promotion even if there is contemplation of a departmental proceeding against him. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to Annexure ‘B’ to the counter
affidavit. Clause (b) of the said Annexure ‘B’, which is an office memorandum, reads as under :–
“(b) An executive who has been placed under suspension pending enquiry and/or against whom departmental/vigilance proceedings are pending, will be promoted, if selected and placed in the select list by a DPC, only after completion of the departmental proceeding.”
6. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision it is manifest that even the cases of those employees against whom a departmental proceeding is pending or is under suspension, shall be considered for promotion and a select list will be prepared but the promotion shall be subject to the result of the departmental proceeding. In other words the cases of promotion of such categories of such employees, as aforesaid, shall be kept in seal cover. It is well settled that promotion of an officer cannot be withheld merely because a departmental proceeding was initiated against him after the DPC considered his case for promotion. In this connection reference may be made to two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India and Anr. v. Degal Suryanarayana, reported in AIR 1999 SC 2407, and in the case of Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh, reported in 2001 (7) SCC 210.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, the
decision of the respondents to give promotion
to the petitioner with effect from 30.8.2000
instead of 30.9.99 is not justified. This writ
application is, therefore, allowed and the matter is remitted back to the respondents for
passing a fresh order of promotion in the light
of the decisions and observations made
hereinabove.
8. Writ application allowed.