2007 (4) TMI 618 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in absence of any charge sheet or at least in absence of any satisfaction having been arrived by the disciplinary authority that a prima facie case has been made out for proceeding against an employee, the Vigilance clearance can be given or not, did not fall for consideration at all therein. No issue in that behalf was framed; no argument was advanced; no reason has been assigned in support of the said order A departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a chargesheet is issued.The floodgate argument also does not appeal to us. The same appears to be an argument of desperation. Only because, there is a possibility of floodgate litigation, a valuable right of a citizen cannot be permitted to be taken away. This Court is bound to determine the respective rights of the parties.We, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments. The appeals being wholly without merits, are dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee assessed at Rs. 50,000/-.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of withholding promotions due to pending vigilance cases.
2. Interpretation of office memorandums dated 27.6.1979 and 8.1.1981.
3. Applicability of the sealed cover procedure.
4. Entitlement to notional promotion and consequential benefits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Withholding Promotions Due to Pending Vigilance Cases:
The respondents, employees of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., were not promoted due to pending vigilance cases. The High Court held that promotions could not be withheld indefinitely based on pending inquiries without formal charges. The Supreme Court affirmed this, stating that an employee's right to be considered for promotion cannot be withheld solely based on allegations unless the conditions in the office memorandums are met.

2. Interpretation of Office Memorandums Dated 27.6.1979 and 8.1.1981:
The office memorandum dated 27.6.1979 required vigilance clearance for promotions but did not clearly define the stage at which vigilance inquiries should affect promotions. The subsequent memorandum dated 8.1.1981 clarified that vigilance clearance should not be withheld merely due to preliminary inquiries unless a charge sheet was likely to be issued or prosecution was sanctioned. The Supreme Court emphasized that these conditions must be strictly satisfied before withholding promotions.

3. Applicability of the Sealed Cover Procedure:
The High Court invoked the sealed cover procedure, which the appellants argued was inapplicable. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court correctly applied the procedure, as the respondents were entitled to promotion once the preliminary inquiry did not result in formal charges within a reasonable time. The Court noted that the sealed cover procedure aims to prevent indefinite delays in promotions due to prolonged inquiries.

4. Entitlement to Notional Promotion and Consequential Benefits:
The High Court granted notional promotion to the respondents from the date their juniors were promoted, along with all consequential benefits. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that once the sealed cover is opened and the employee is promoted, they are entitled to all service and financial benefits retrospectively. The Court also noted that the respondents were never suspended during the inquiries, further justifying their entitlement to notional promotion.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment. It held that the respondents were entitled to notional promotion and consequential benefits from the date their juniors were promoted, as the conditions for withholding promotions were not met. The Court emphasized the need for fairness and reasonableness in the actions of state entities, in line with the constitutional scheme of equality. The appeals were dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 50,000/-.