STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus RAMANAND PANDEY

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 892 · Decided: 10-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 892 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
RAMANAND PANDEY 
(Civil Appeal No. 9486 of 2014) 
OCTOBER 10, 2014. 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Promotion -
Cancellation of -
Respondent, on 
promotion, not joining at the place of transfer and returning 
the promotion order - Promotion cancelled - High Court 
setting aside the cancellation order on the ground that no 
departmental proceedings were pending against respondent 
D - Cancellation did not come because of the reason of 
pendency of any alleged departmental inquiry against the 
respondent - Respondent was not interested in joining the 
duties at the place of transfer and cancelling the promotion 
for that reason cannot be treated as illegal or arbitrary. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Insofar as the Department is concerned, the 
respondent was duly considered for promotion and was 
in fact promoted to the post 
ADO. The cancellation did 
F not come because of 
e reason of pendency of any 
alleged depart 
al inquiry against the respondent, 
which was self created reason given by him. When he 
was not served with any charge sheet, there was no 
question of withholding his promotion. In any case, the 
G respondent was not1nterested in joining the duties at the 
place of transfer and cancelling the promotion for that 
reason cannot be treated as illegal or arbitrary in the facts 
of the instant case. The impugned order of the High C'ourt 
H 
892 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. RAMANAND 
893 
PANDEY 
• 
is clearly erroneous and against the law. The same is, A 
accordingly, reversed. (para 12,14,15 and 16] [898-F; 900-
B; 901-B-F] 
Union of India v. K. V. Janakiraman & Ors. 1991(3) SCR 
790 = 1991 (4) sec 109 - held inapplicable. 
Case Law Reference: 
1991 (3) SCR 790 
held inapplicable 
para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
B 
9486 of 2014. 
C 
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.7.2012 of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in W.A. No. 378 of 2012. 
Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaja Shukla, Ankit Kr. Lal for the 
D 
Appellants. 
Prasant Shukla, Nikilesh Ramachandran for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Matter heard finally as counsel on either side, who were 
ready to argue the matter, made a specific request in this behalf. 
3. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated July 
E 
F 
10, 2012 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh whereby writ appeal filed by the appellants 
herein has been dismissed and the order of the learned Single 
Judge passed in the writ petition, which was preferred by the G 
respondent herein, has been affirmed. The learned Single 
Judge of the High Court had allowed the writ petition of the 
respondent in which challenge to the order dated November 25, 
2006, whereby the respondent was reverted from the post of 
Agriculture Development Officer (for short, 'ADO'), was laid. The 
H 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
learned Single Judge held that such a reversion was bad in law 
and quashed the same with the directions to the appellants 
herein to restore the promotion of the respondent as ADO from 
the date he was promoted to the said post, with all 
B 
c 
consequential benefits. 
4. The facts gathered from the pleadings are mentioned 
hereunder in encapsulated form, as narration there of will reflect 
the precise grievance of the respondent and the circumstances 
under which the said grievance arose for consideration. 
5. The respondent was employed in the Agriculture 
Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh, i.e. appellant No.1 
herein. Since 1990, he was posted in District Bhind. In the year 
2005, when he was working as Rural Agricultural Extension 
Officer (RAEO), his turn matured for consideration of his case 
D 
for promotion to the next post, i.e. ADO. He was considered 
by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion as 
ADO which adjudged him fit for promotion to the said post. 
Based on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion 
Committee, the competent authority passed orders dated 
E 
December 23, 2005 giving him promotion as ADO. In para 3 
of the promotion order there was a stipulation to the effect that 
the Deputy Director of the concerned State District/Division, 
where the promoted employee was working, had to examine 
F 
as to whether any departmental inquiry or prosecution was 
pending against such an employee or wheth

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