LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus A.N. MOHANAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A \I. A.N. MOHANAN APRIL 18, 2007 [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND D.K.JAIN, JJ.] B Service Law: Promotion-Sealed cover procedure-Penalty of censure-Held: Awarding of censure is a blameworthy factor and, therefore, findings of C sealed cover are not to be acted upon-Case of promotion rightly considered by the next DPC in normal course-0.M. dated 14.9.1992 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training-R 3.1. Pending departmental inquiry against the respondent, the Departmental Promotion Committee made selections on 1.11.1999 and adopted sealed cover procedure as regards the respondent. The departmental proceedings culminated in the penalty to censure being awarded to the respondent He was later promoted on 26.11.2001. He claimed promotion w.e.f. 1.11.1999. The CAT D as also the High Court having held in his favour, the Department filed the E present appeal. It was contended for the appellant that since penalty of censure was imposed on the respondent, in view of Rule 3.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 14.9.1992 relating to promotion of Government servants issued by the ~· Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, F Department of Personnel and Training, findings of sealed cover were not to be acted upon and the respondent was rightly promoted w.e.f. 26.11.2001. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Awarding of censure is a blameworthy factor. Rule 3.1 of O.M. G dated 14.9.1992 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personae~ Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, makes the position clear that where any penalty has been imposed, the findings of the sealed cover are not to be acted upon and the case for promotion may be 279 fl 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R. A considered by the next DPC in the normal course. Having regard to the penalty f imposed on the respondent, his claim for promotion with effect from 1.11.1999 was clearly unacceptable. Undisputedly the respondent has been given promotion with effect from 26.11.2001. The order of High Court affirming the view taken by the CAT is set aside. (Para 10 and 11) [283-E-F) B Union of India etc. etc. v. Jankiraman etc.etc., AIR [1991) SC 2010, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2020 of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 28. l 0.2004 of the High Court of C Kerala at Emakulam in W.P. No. 31602 of 2004. A. Sharan, ASG., Sushma Suri and Sunita Sharma for the Appellants. Haris Beeran and Radha Shyam Jena for the Respondent. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. In E the writ petition challenge was made to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Emakulam Bench (in short the 'CAT') in O.A. No. 203 of2002. 3. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. F 4. Departmental enquiry was started against the respondent on 3.8. I 999. The Departmental Promotion Committee (in short the 'DPC') made the selection on 1.11. I 999. Since the enquiry was pending against the respondent, sealed cover procedure was adopted. On 13 .9 .200 I the penalty of censure was awarded. Promotion was granted to the respondent on 26.11.200 I. However, G he claimed that promotion should have been given to him with effect from I.I 1.1999. He moved the CAT seeking for such direction. CAT by its order dated 18th June, 2004 held that penalty of censure is not a bar for promotion and though the sealed cover procedure was adopted, the sealed cover should have been opened and the recommendation of DPC should have been given effect to by giving the respondent promotional benefit with effect from H 1.11.1999. )._. ... ~ - ....... -f U.0.1. v. A.N. MOHAN AN [PASAYA T, J.] 281 5. The order of CAT was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition. The High Court noted that awarding of penalty of censure would not affect the promotion of the resoondent and the department was not right in contending that the awarding of penalty (censure) would stand on the way of promotion. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the effect of Rule 3.1 of the Office Memorandum relat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.