R.K.Sah v. Union Of India And ORS.
cm NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2421 of 2013 R.K.Sah S/O Shri Pachanan Sah Aged About years RIO Shivanandan Nagar, Sector 3, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg ---- Petitioner
Versus
.
Union Of India And Ors.
S/o Ministry Of Railway Through Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Dist Bilaspur, Cg 2.
Chief Personnel Officer Headquarter v Officer, South East Central Railway, Personnek Department, Bilaspur, st Di Bilaspur,Cg .
Shri Omprakash Commercial Inspector-1, Office Of Senior DCM. South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Presently Posted As Assistant Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway, Nagpur, Dist Nagpur, Ms ---- Respondents For Petitioner:
ShriAmrito Das For Respondent Nos.1 &2 Shri HS. Ahluwaiia For Respondent No.3 Shri Srinivas Rao Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board Per Navin Sinha, Acting Chief Justice 05/03/201 5 We have heard Learned Counsel for Petitioner Respondents.
2.
controversy involved relates a dispute between Petitioner and Respondent No.3 for promotion from Group-C to GroupB post.
in 3.
In view of the nature of the order that we propose to pass, it is not considered necessary to notice the entire facts of the case except to the extent necessary.
4.
Suffice it to observe that Respondent No.3 was issued a warning on 28.02.2006 in a vigilance oaset Respondent/Raiiways published a notification on 17.11.2009 for selection and formation of a panel for the post of Assistant Commercial Manager, a Group~B post. written examination was conducted on 28.8.2010 results K published on 7.10.2010.
On 30.11.2010, Respondent No.3 was placed under suspension on ground of another vigilance case.
suspension was recalled on 5.1.2011 ultimately, after issuance of charge on 8.3.2011, No.3 was exonerated in departmental proceedings on 18.2.2013.
Manager (Vigilance) was not agreeable with the exoneration and a revision has been preferred by Vigilance Department before Manager under Rule-25 of Railway Servants (Discipline Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') pursuant to Clause 2.1.3 of the notification dated 19.07.2006 providing for the procedure for dealing with DAR cases against Group-C and staff arising out of vigilance investigation.
5.
ln meantime, No.3 has been promoted posted on the post of Assistant Commercial Manager (Goods), Nagpur, SECR.
6.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the vigilance is pursuing matters only with regard exoneration pursuant charge sheet dated 8.3.2011.
The Disciplinary Authority had differed
with the indictment of the private Respondent by the Inquiry Officer with regard to charge-HI.
There is yet another aspect of the matter.
Master Circular on instructions governing promotions dealing with the selection procedure at Clause-1GB provides (record of service Viva-Voce) for 25 marks each under Viva-Voce and record of service. The qualifying mark is 3O with at least 15 marks to be obtained under head 'record of service'.
service records, which includes confidential reports of previous years, under Clause (assessment of record of service), were required to be seen. The DPC {it was appris'ed of the punishment for warning given on 28.2.2006 which fell within the 5 year period.
Quite apart from what the vigilance may be contending in the revision case, this is also an important factor to be considered which may render Respondent No.3 c%mpletely ineligible. It does not appear that it was brought to the attention of the DPC or considered by it properly.
7.
Learned Counsel for Respondents/Railway submits from record of the DPC that the entire service record of the past 5 years of Respondent No.3 was placed before the DPC and which has awarded him marks appropriately under Clause 11.2.
The deliberations state that there was no major penalty proceedings pending which implies that the minor punishment had already been seen by the DPC. lt was not a case where materials were not placed before the DPC. 8.
Learned Counsel for No.3 has supported arguments made on behalf of the Railways.
9.
ln view ofthe fact that a revision case has already been filed by the Vigilance before the Manager under Rule 25(lll) of the Rules and as informed by Learned Counsel for the Railways, General
QQ Manager is already in seisin of the matter, notice has also been issued No.3, any adjudication by us may amount prejudging revision case prejudice of either the Petitioner or Respondent No.3.
10.
We therefore refrain from any order/observation on merits and direct the Manger dispose revision at an early date preterabiy within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt of production of copy of this order before him if not earlier. 11.
Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to participate in the revision proceedings, and make submissions.
12.
The Writ Petition is disposed with the aforesaid directions but without prejudice with the rights of the aggrieved further in accordance with the law.
13.
The appeal stands disposed.
SdlP. Sam Koshy Judge Sd/- Acting Chief Justice Priya