LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. versus SYED NASEEM ZAHIR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. v. SYED NASEEM ZAHIR AND OTHERS OCTOBER 13, 1992 [KULDIP SINGH, N.M. KASLIWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] Civil Services: C "Sealed cover procedure''-f'o//owed by DepaJtmental Promotion Com- mittee-Departmental proceedings-<:harge sheet served subsequently-- Proceedings likely to come to an end shortly-Procedure to be followed thereafter-Directions issued. The first respondent joined service in 1953 as Assistant Engineer, D and was promoted from time to time and in 1978 he become Superintend- ing Engineer. 'in the year 1986 his name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. The Department Promotion Committee (DPC) met in October 1987 and considered bis name for promotion. Since disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him, E the recommendation in respect of the first respondent was kept in 'sealed cover". Thereafter in 1988, be was served with a charge sheet. The first respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the adoption of "sealed cover' procedure by the DPC and claiming that he was entitled to promotion since bis junior was already F promotion. The petiton came to be transferrred to the State Administra- tive Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that "sealed cover' procedure could be adopted only after the date of issuance of charge-sheet and since on the date when DPC met, no charge-sheet was served on the first respondent, 'sealed cover'procedure could not have been resorted to. G The Tribunal directed the appellant to promote the first respondent to the post of Chief Engineer. Aggrieved be the Tribunal's decision the State preferred the present appeal. H On behalf of the first respondent it was contended that he was 962 STATE OFM.P. v. SYED NASEEM [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 963 entitled to promotion from 1987 on the basis of the recommendation or the A DPC. Allowing the appeal, this Court, · HELD: Lt. The departmental enquiry against first respondent has been completed and the charges against blln have been proved. Keeping In B view the gravlt)' of the charge and the heavy financial loss to the State Government It bas been tentatively decided by the appellants to impose · major jienalty' upon him and for that purpose the proceedings have been referred to the State Public Service Commission. [965-E] 1.2. The "sealed cover" ·containing recommendations of ibe DPC in C · respect of the first respondent be ·not opened till the departmental proceed· logs against him are concluded. The enquiry report bas already been received. by him and it Is a matter of days before the disciplinary proceedlgns would come to an end. In case be Is completely exonerated, the "sealed cover" shall be 11pened and if the recommendation is in his D favour, be shall be notionally promoted with effect from the date when a person junior to him was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer. In that event, be shall be entitled to all consequential benefits inclnding back· wages. In case be is punished in the proceeding3, then action would be taken in accordance with the guidelines as laid down by this Court in E Jankiraman's case. [966 B·C·Dl Union of India v. KV. Jankiraman and Others, [1991] 4 SCC 109, relied on • . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4198 of F 1992. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.1992 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Transferred Application No.2702 of 1988. S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants. S.A. Syed for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted. G H A B 964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. l S.C.R. Syed Naseem. Zahir (Syed) joined service in the Irrigation Depart- ment of the State of Madhya Pradesh as Assistant Engineer on August 26, 1953. He was promoted as executive Engineer in 1962. He was further promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in April 1978. In the year 1986 his name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer but neither he nor anyone junior to him was promoted. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on October 28, 1987 and considered his name for promotion. Since disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him, the recommendation of the DPC qua him was kept in "sealed cover". On April 15, 1988 he was served with a charge sheet. C Syed filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.