2009 (1) TMI 865 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

The summary of the given information is as follows:

The MR. P.K. and MR. CHANDRU, MR. Malaichamy and Mr. Malaichamy were the main individuals involved in the case. The issue in question was the timing of a promotion. The Department Promotion Committee had considered promoting the first respondent in 1998 but due to disciplinary proceedings, the proceedings were kept in a sealed cover. A punishment of stoppage of increment was imposed but later reduced to a censure. The first respondent claimed that since the punishment was modified to a censure, he should have been promoted earlier. The first respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the first respondent. The department challenged this ruling.

The department argued that the Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992 should be followed in such cases. The first respondent's counsel argued that a subsequent unreported decision of the Supreme Court had considered only the Office Memorandum of 1982 and not the subsequent instructions issued by the C & AG Circular dated 30.8.1990. The court observed that the sealed cover procedure should not be acted upon if a penalty is imposed on the government servant and the case should be considered by the next DPC in the normal course. The court also stated that even censure is a punishment and the procedure laid down in Rule 3.1 should be followed. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Tribunal.

Therefore, it can be seen that the court held that the procedure adopted in Rule 3.1 should be followed and the first respondent should not have been promoted earlier.