IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2041 of 2009
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Jharkhand
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of
Forest Jharkhand, Ranchi.... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India
2. Narendra Mishra ... ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.C.S. RAWAT
------
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Prasad, A.G.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, Prabhash Kr.
------
3/ 07.10.2009
This Writ Petition, filed by the State, is directed against the
order dated 26.6.2008 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit Sitting at Ranchi) in O.A. No. 124 of
2006. By the said order the Tribunal quashed the departmental
proceeding on the ground of unexplained delay and held that the
applicant-respondent is entitled to all consequential benefits
including promotion, if any.
2. The undisputed facts are that the applicant-respondent
belongs to the Indian Forest Service cadre and was posted as
Conservator of Forest. A departmental proceeding was initiated
against him in the year 1999. But when there was no progress in the
departmental proceeding, the applicant-respondent approached the
Tribunal in O.A. No. 18 of 2001, which was disposed of with a
direction to conclude the departmental proceeding within four
months. But when the above direction was not complied with for
about more than four years the applicant-respondent against
moved the Tribunal in O.A. No. 25 of 2005. The Tribunal disposed
of the said application by giving one more opportunity to the
appellant to conclude the proceeding and take a final decision
within five months. The aforesaid direction was also not complied
with. However in the year 2006, the Disciplinary Authority
recommended imposition of punishment of censure and decided to
refer the matter to Union Public Service Commission vide its letter
dated 27.5.2006. The Tribunal, therefore, on the basis of ratio
decided in Mahadevan’s Case reported in JT 2005 (7) SC 417 and
other decisions of the Supreme Court held that proceeding is liable
-2-
to be quashed on the ground of unexplained delay. The Tribunal
further held that the applicant-respondent is entitled to all
consequential benefits including promotion, if any.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-respondent
produced before us copy of the counter affidavit said to have been
filed today, wherein, in paragraph 14, it is stated that the Union
Public Service Commission after going through the entire record
has expressed its opinion, after considering all other aspects, to
drop the proceeding.
4. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and after considering the facts discussed herein above, the
Tribunal rightly held that the departmental proceeding should not
have been continued for such a long time.
5. However, we are of the view that the Tribunal instead of
holding that the applicant-respondent is entitled to promotion
ought to have directed the concerned authority to consider the case
of the applicant for promotion either by opening the decision kept
in the sealed cover, if any, or in accordance with the procedure
provided in law.
6. We, therefore, dispose of this application with the
modification to the extent indicted herein above.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
( J.C.S. Rawat , J)
Alankar/