D.K. Vatsa v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

1. The petitioner assails the order dated 16.02.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 788/2011 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the said original application.

2. The petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the respondents-ITDC of placing the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for his promotion to the post of Senior Manager (E&M) in a sealed cover. He sought the opening of the sealed cover and its implementation. 2014:DHC:4993-DB

3. The background facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager (E&M) with the respondent- ITDC in 1984. He was promoted to the post of Manager (E&M) on 10.06.1993. The next promotional post for which the petitioner is eligible is Senior Manager (E) & (M). The petitioner was fit to be considered for regular promotion to the post of Manager (E&M) on 09.06.1996, having completed three years’ regular service in the feeder cadre. The petitioner started officiating in the post of Senior Manager (E&M) with effect from 17.03.2003.

4. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet for major penalty on 25.09.2005. During the pendency of the departmental inquiry, the DPC met on 23.08.2006 to consider the cases of candidates eligible for promotion as Senior Manager (E&M). The petitioner’s case was also considered and placed in a sealed cover.

5. Vide order dated 31.07.2007, the petitioner was subjected to the punishment of ‘censure’ which was to come into force with effect from 05.12.2006. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed. He further preferred a review, which changed the date of coming into effect of the penalty of censure from 05.12.2006 to 31.07.2007.

6. The grievance of the petitioner was that instead of opening the sealed cover, the respondents convened another DPC on 20.02.2009 when the petitioner’s case was also considered for promotion to the post of Senior Manager (E&M). Yet another DPC was held on 16.04.2009 for the said purpose. However, result of the DPCs was not declared. One more major penalty charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 12.11.2010. Yet another DPC was convened for the said promotional post on 29.11.2010 i.e. during the pendency of the second charge-sheet, and the petitioner’s consideration was again placed in a sealed cover. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid original application.

7. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was not promoted to the post of Senior Manager (E&M) even though he had become eligible for consideration on 09.06.1996, and despite the fact that DPCs have been held on four occasions, the petitioner’s consideration was placed in a sealed cover on the two occasions and the result of the DPC in respect of two other occasions was not known. The case of the petitioner was that as on 28.08.2006, when the DPC was convened, the petitioner was not facing any disciplinary cases, nor he was then being proceeded in any criminal cases. The case of the petitioner was that he was merely censured, which had effect only for a limited period and after the expiry of the effect of the penalty of censure, the sealed cover should have been opened.

8. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the petitioner had not challenged the penalty of censure imposed upon him. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that between 2006 and 2010, only two DPCs were held on 23.08.2006 and 29.11.2010. The procedure adopted qua the petitioner, namely, the sealed cover procedure was under examination. The Tribunal held that since the petitioner was being proceeded departmentally when the DPC was held on 28.03.2006, adoption of the sealed cover procedure was justified and, as he had been punished – though with the minor penalty of censure, the said sealed cover could not have been opened. So far as the DPC held on 21.11.2010 was concerned, the Tribunal noticed that a major penalty charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 12.11.2010 i.e. before the meeting of the DPC. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.V.Janakiraman AIR 1991 SC 2010 to hold that the petitioner’s case was rightly considered and his consideration placed in a sealed cover. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s original application.

9. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner has once again sought to raise a grievance with regard to his not being promoted despite being eligible for promotion as Senior Manager (E&M) way back in June, 1996, on account of the issuance of two charge-sheets.

10. Having considered these submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the decision rendered by the Tribunal, and having appreciated the legal position, it is clear to us that the procedure adopted by the respondents qua the petitioner’s consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Manager (E&M) is legal and there is no infirmity therein. The petitioner’s case was rightly placed in sealed covers on the two occasions when the DPC met on 28.03.2006 and 21.11.2010 since the petitioner was, on both the occasions, being proceeded departmentally. As the charge-sheet dated 25.09.2005 (which led to the sealed cover procedure being adopted in DPC held on 28.03.2006) resulted in imposition of a penalty-though a minor one, the sealed cover of the DPC held on 28.03.2006 could not have been opened at all. So far as the meetings of the DPC held on 17.04.2009 and 22.09.2010 are concerned, it appears that the same were inconclusive and thus the petitioner cannot have any grievance on account of the said DPCs not leading to any promotions being made. It is not the petitioner’s case that other candidates whose cases for promotion were considered in those meetings were granted promotions on the basis of the decision taken in the said meetings. So far as the meeting held on 21.11.2010 is concerned, the petitioner, once again, being under a cloud on account of the issuance of charge-sheet dated 12.11.2010, his case was rightly placed in a sealed cover. It is not clear whether the said departmental proceeding have attained finality and, if so, what is the result thereof. If the petitioner is exonerated in respect of the charge sheet issued on 12.11.2010, the respondent shall open the seal cover and if the petitioner has been found fit for promotion, grant promotion to him. However, in case, the petitioner is penalized in respect of the charge-sheet issued on 12.11.2010, the said sealed cover shall not be opened.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and dispose of the petition in the aforesaid terms.

12. The petition stands disposed of.

VIPIN SANGHI, J. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 sl