LexCHANDRA GUPTA, IFS versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B CHANDRA GUPTA, IFS v. SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF . ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J., S. MOHAN AND DR. AS. ANAND, JJ.] SelVice Law-Confidential Report-Seniority and promotio~Selection C post-Supersession of officer in . view of adverse remarks in confidential reports-Expunction of adverse remarks after special review, and promotion effected to selection grade-Whether superseded officer entitled to restoration of seniorit)-Whether officers adversely affected by such expunction have right to be heard-Held, in the promotion under consideration, merit and not mere .D E seniority is essentiaHn any event, factual finding of comparative merit by the DPC would have to precede consideration for restoration of seniority- Also, while question of locus standi of other affected officers in the matter of expunction of adverse remarks left to Tribunal to decide, held, they may validly urge that they brought to the notice of the authority that expunction had been . obtained by fraud. Constitution of India. Articles 14 and 16(1)-lndian Forest SelVice (Pay) Rules 1968, R.3-All India SelVices (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969, R.2~All India SelVices (Confidential Rolls) Rules 1970, R.9--:lndian Forest SelVice (Recruitment) Rules 1966, R.4(a) and 5-lndian Forest SelVice F (Regulation of Seniority) Rules 196~ndian Forest selVice (Initial Recruit- ment) Regulations 1966-Forest Manua~ Rr. 226/227. Practice and procedure-Interlocutory order, appeal against-Tribunal being in seisin of the matter, appeal dismissed with general obselVations G The officers involved in these cases were all Indian Forest Service .(IFS) Officers of the UP cadre. In view of adverse entries in the appellant's confidential reports, he was superseded, and respondents 3, 4, 5 and, latter, 6 were promoted to the grade of Additional Chief Conservator of Forest (ACCF) in selections held in August 1988. Thereafter, the adverse remarks were expunged, in a special review and the appellant was promoted as Chief H Conservator of Forests (which had, in the meantime, merged with the post 370 J - CHANDRA GUPTA v. MIN. OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS 371 1lf of ACCF) in February 1990. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 moved the Tribunal A to restrain Secretary, Department of Forests, State of UP fr()m .considering the appellant and respondent 6 for promotion to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests before the claims of respondents 3 to 5 were con- sidered, on the basis, inter alia, of the length of service of respondents 3 to 5 in the higher post. The Tribunal held that mere expunction of adverse remarks sub- sequently could not affect seniority. Persons who had already been ac- corded promotion will continue to remain senior. •n related proceedings, B the Tribunal passed interlocutory orders directing the Staie to produce the DPC record for making selection to the post of Principal Chief Conservator C of Forests as well as the records pertaining to expunction of the adverse entry in the confidential records of the appellant. Further, it directed that the appellant shall not be given, or take charge, of the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. Before the Court, for the appellant it was urged that upon expunction D of adverse remarks and subsequent promotion, the original seniority of the concerned officer stood restored and the failure to restore the seniority would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. For the respondents it was contended that the expunction of remarks was based on misrepresenta- tion and fraud; that the officers likely to be affected by the expunction of the remarks had not been afforded an opportunity to put forth their objections; E and that the promotions in this case was to a selection post to be filled by merit with due regard to seniority and that only when the merit is equal seniority becomes relevant in the matter of promotio°: to a selection post. Dismissing the appeal, this Court F HELD : 1. It cannot be held that on the expunction of adverse remarks and consequential promotion, the promotion of the appellant would date back to the date when it was due. Rule 3(3) of the IFS (Pay) Rules 1968 provides that the selection shall be made by selection on merit with due regard to seniority. Therefore what is essential is merit and not G mere seniority. [377-G, 378-F] Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajast
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.