By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, APRIL 22, 2018: THE issue is - Whether mere CBI's proposal to initiate departmental action against a serving Revenue Officer is sufficient to deny his routine promotion, specially when he has vigilance clearance from the Department itself. NO is the verdict.

Facts of the case: Respondent is a serving Revenue Officer. Mr. Ashok Kumar was working as an Assistant CIT and had earned promotions up to the rank of Additional CIT. On 25th November, 2010, a case was registered against the respondent u/s 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec. 109 IPC by CBI, ACB, Kolkata. Following to the investigation, a final closure was filed by the CBI u/s 173 of CrPC before the court of the Special Judge and the same was accepted. Later, for the vacancy year 2014-15, a committee namely, Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was formed to consider promotions of eligible officers to the post of CIT. During a metting held by such committee, the name of the respondent along with his batch mates were considered and he was found fit and therefore, their names were forwarded to the DOPT for obtaining the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). The DOPT had intimated the Department that the ACC had directed it to expedite taking a decision on the pending complaints against the respondent along with six other officers and re-submit their cases for consideration of the ACC at the earliest.

Aggreived respondent, contended before the Tribunal that inspite of including his name in the proposal and the list of recommendations made by the DPC, the promotion order issued on 16.09.2015, did not include his name whereas those who were junior to him, namely, Sh. Satpal Gulati & Sh. B.Venkataswara Rao, were promoted to the post of CIT. To which, the petitioner admitted that the respondent's name was recommended for promotion by the DPC in its meeting. It was also not denied that the criminal proceedings initiated against the respondent were closed by the Special Judge. However, the request of the CBI for initiating departmental action for major penalty, against the respondent remained pending. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the OA of the respondent by directing the petitioners to implement the DPC's recommendations and granted him notional promotion to the post of CIT from the date his juniors were promoted along with financial benefits from the date of his actual promotion and seniority.

the High Court held that,

++ the Counsel for the petitioner assails the disputed order on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the CBI had recommended initiating departmental proceedings for imposition of major penalty against the respondent. This aspect was highlighted by the petitioner in the counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal wherein it was specifically averred that in the final report submitted by the CBI before the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Kolkata it was stated that the evidence collected during the investigation of the case was adequate for sustaining the charge of possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 9,52,312.07 (14.58% of income from all known sources) against the respondent in the departmental proceedings for a major penalty;

++ admittedly, till date, the petitioner has not initiated any departmental proceedings against the respondent by charging him for possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of over 9 lakhs. In such circumstances, we see no reason to differ with the opinion expressed by the Tribunal in the disputed order. The DPC was convened on 05.06.2015 and it is undisputed that on the said date, no criminal or departmental proceedings were pending against the respondent and the department had given a vigilance clearance before recommending his name for promotion along with the others.

(See 2018-TIOL-756-HC-DEL-SERVICE )