2006 (8) TMI 659 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-issuance of posting orders despite promotion.
2. Application of sealed cover procedure due to pending disciplinary proceedings.
3. The validity of the disciplinary authority's decision to withhold promotion.
4. The impact of the timing of the disciplinary proceedings on the promotion process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-issuance of Posting Orders Despite Promotion:
The petitioner, a Civil Engineer, was promoted to the grade of Non-functional Executive Engineer (Civil) and subsequently to Superintending Engineer (Civil) effective from 1.9.05 or the date of assumption of charge of the post. However, the petitioner alleged that respondent No. 3, with malafide intentions, did not issue any posting orders for him, though orders were issued for the other two selected officers who joined their posts.

2. Application of Sealed Cover Procedure Due to Pending Disciplinary Proceedings:
The respondents argued that the petitioner was involved in grave misconduct of misappropriating public funds amounting to Rs. 2.6 crores. The competent authority decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. Consequently, the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) regarding the petitioner was to be kept in a sealed cover, and no posting orders were issued.

3. The Validity of the Disciplinary Authority's Decision to Withhold Promotion:
The respondents contended that the letter dated 30.8.05 did not constitute a complete promotion as joining the post is an essential part of the promotion. Since the petitioner was under investigation for serious misconduct, the disciplinary authority decided to withhold his promotion until the finalization of the vigilance case or his complete exoneration from the charges. The Article of Charges was issued to the petitioner on 30 Sep 2005, and he received it on 07 Oct 2005.

4. The Impact of the Timing of the Disciplinary Proceedings on the Promotion Process:
The petitioner argued that the promotion order dated 30.8.05 was effective from 1.9.05 and that any subsequent disciplinary action should not affect his promotion. However, the court noted that the decision to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner was taken well before the DPC met on 12.7.05. The court referred to government instructions which state that if any disciplinary proceedings arise after the DPC's recommendations but before actual promotion, the case should be placed in a sealed cover until the officer is exonerated.

Judgment:
The court concluded that promotion involves several steps: selection by the DPC, acceptance of the recommendation by the competent authority, and the officer joining the promoted post. The promotion is not complete until all these steps are fulfilled. The court held that the disciplinary authority was justified in withholding the petitioner's promotion due to the pending disciplinary proceedings. The reliance on Supreme Court judgments by the petitioner was found to be unhelpful as the circumstances in those cases were different. The court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.