2018 (4) TMI 1563 - HC - Indian Laws

Promotion to the post of Commissioner, Income Tax - grievance of the respondent as raised before the Tribunal was that though his name had figured at serial number 131 in the proposal placed before the DPC and he was found fit and placed in the List of the recommendations made by the DPC at serial number 105 for his promotion, the promotion order issued on 16.09.2015, did not include his name - Held that - Admittedly, till date, the petitioner has not initiated any departmental proceedings against the respondent by charging him for possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of over 9 lakhs. In such circumstances, we see no reason to differ with the opinion expressed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The DPC was convened on 05.06.2015 and it is undisputed that on the said date, no criminal or departmental proceedings were pending against the respondent and the department had given a vigilance clearance before recommending his name for promotion along with the others. Petition dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Promotion denial based on pending criminal and departmental proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner, Union of India, challenged a judgment by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing a petition for promotion to the post of Commissioner, Income Tax. The respondent, an Additional Commissioner, faced a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was closed by the Special Judge, CBI, Kolkata. Despite being recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the respondent was not promoted while his juniors were. The petitioner contended that the CBI recommended departmental proceedings against the respondent for possessing disproportionate assets. However, no such proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal relied on relevant government orders and previous judgments to rule in favor of the respondent, directing the petitioner to grant him notional promotion and related benefits.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of an Office Memorandum (OM) and a subsequent Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) regarding vigilance clearance for promotions. These memorandums specified that promotions should not be withheld based solely on suspicion or ongoing investigations without charge sheets. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions to support its ruling, emphasizing that no criminal or disciplinary proceedings were pending against the respondent at the time of his promotion consideration by the DPC. As no departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent for the alleged disproportionate assets, the Tribunal found the petitioner's challenge unfounded and upheld the promotion order in favor of the respondent.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the petitioner's challenge. The Court affirmed that as no criminal or departmental proceedings were pending against the respondent at the time of his promotion consideration, the promotion denial was unjustified. The Court emphasized the importance of following established guidelines and previous judgments in such cases, ensuring fair treatment of employees in promotion matters.