G. MOHANASUNDARAM versus R. NANTHAGOPAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 920 · Decided: 21-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 920 
G. MOHANASUNDARAM 
v. 
R. NANTHAGOPAL AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6614 of 2014) 
JULY 21, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, 
AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by 
C 
Promotion) Regulations, 1955: Regulation 5 - Promotion -
State Civil Service - Disciplinary proceedings against first 
respondent - State Government withheld ACRs of few years 
of certain candidates including the first respondent on the 
ground that the ACRs were not valid - First respondent was 
o selected - Appellant was not selected - OA by appellant -
When the matter was pending, the State Government dropped 
the disciplinary proceedings - By an amendment application 
filed in pending OA, the appellant challenged appointment of 
first respondent - CAT quashed the notifications by which 
E 
appellant not selected and by which first respondent 
appointed - High Court set aside order of CAT - Held: CAT 
rightly held that Selection Committee did not take into 
account all relevant facts and records to show that first 
respondent was superior to the appellant - CAT noticed that 
F 
State Government dropped proceedings against first 
respondent without giving detailed reasons for such action -
Order passed by CAT upheld with direction to reconsider the 
name of appellant vis-a-vis first respondent for promotion. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. As per Regulation 5(4) of the Indian · 
Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) 
Regulations, 1955, it is mandatory for the Selection 
Committee to make an overall relative assessment of 
920 
G. MOHANASUNDARAM v. R. NANTHAGOPAL 
921 
'service records' of the eligible candidates. As per first A 
proviso to Regulation 5(5) the name of such officer so 
included in the Select List against whom departmental 
proceedings are pending is provisional. The State 
Government did not send the relevant service records of 
the first respondent, for the preceding five years prior to 
B 
selection on the ground that they are not valid. The name 
of the first respondent was included provisionally 
subject to clearance in the disciplinary proceedings 
pending against him. Withholding of ACRs of the year 
2003-2009 of the first respondent on a wrong c 
presumption that they were invalid was illegal and fatal 
in the case of first respondent towards his appointment. 
The CAT rightly held that the Selection Committee did not 
take into account all relevant facts and records to hold 
that the first respondent was superior to appellant. In the 0 
departmental proceedings, Enquiry Officer had held that 
the charge no.2 was proved against the first respondent. 
In spite of the same, the State Government dropped the 
charges. The CAT held that the State Government failed 
to furnish the valid reasons for dropping charges and for 
subsequent issuance of integrity certificate to the first E 
respondent. For the said reason the CAT held that the 
action on the part of the State is a case of hasty decision. 
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in discussing the 
charges framed against the first respondent and in 
justifying the grounds for dropping the ctlarges, though 
F 
it was not disclosed by the State Government. The 
impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set 
aside and the order passed by the CAT is upheld with 
direction to the respondent(s) to reconsider the name· of 
the appellant vis-a-vis first respondent for promotion to G 
the post of Indian Administrative Service against the 
vacancies for the year 2009. [Paras 19 to 23, 27 to 32) 
[927-H; 928-A; 929-B-E; 932-E-H; 933-A-H; 934-A] 
H 
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No, 
6614 of 2014. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 8.07.2013 in WP No. 
5508 of 2013 of the High Court of Madras. 
B 
P.P. Rao, G. Balaji, Akshat Kulshreshta, Mahalakshmi 
c 
Pavani for the Appellant. 
Basava Prabu Patil, G. Shankaran, llango, T. Harish 
Kumar, B. Balaji, R. Rakesh Sharma, S. Anand, Binu Tamta for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPAOHAYA, J. 1. Leave 
granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
D 
dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.5508 of 2013. 
Initially, the appellant herein challenged the Government 
notifications dated 10th February, 2012 and 13th April, 2012 
whereby 1st respondent was

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.