Kamlesh Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

Heard Mr. Alok Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohan Dubey, A.C to learned Advocate General and Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned CGC for the Union of India.

Writ petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the Original Application No. 051/00087/2017 with M.A. No. 051/00065/2017 by the impugned order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench, Ranchi on the ground of being barred by delay in terms of limitation prescribed under section 21 of Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985.

Applicant / petitioner approached the learned CAT for the following relief(s).

"(a) To call for the records of the case and quash for quashing the letter dated 04.01.2017, letter no. 13/P5-1005/2003 28 by which the applicant's application for promotion to Senior Selection Grade with effect from 01.01.2011 was rejected on the ground that vide order dated 03.08.2011 a punishment of censure was passed after the retirement of the applicant which was admittedly never communicated to the applicant (Annexure A-10).

(b) Further the applicant prays for direction upon the respondents to grant promotion to Junior Administrative Grade of the IPS and Senior Selection Grade with effect from 01.01.2011 along with all consequential benefits.

(c) Further quash orders of the Respondents dated 03.08.2011 whereby and whereunder a punishment of censure was passed after the retirement of the applicant which was admittedly never communicated to the applicant."

Applicant joined the State Police Service on 18.03.1983 on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In due course of time, he was promoted to the Indian Police Service in 2005. His seniority in the IPS Cadre was computed with effect from 1998, as per Notification dated 22.05.2009. During his posting as Superintendent of Police, Chatra, he faced departmental proceeding bearing Memo No. 4363 dated 17.07.2010 under Rule 6 & 8 of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 for gross negligence of duty and other charges. He superannuated on 31.07.2011 before penalty order was passed.

Applicant approached the learned CAT in 2017 with the aforesaid prayer. He was aggrieved due to non-grant of Senior Selection Grade while his juniors were given the same. He also raised a claim of Junior Selection Grade. Representation raising the instant grievances were made on a number of dates before the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letters dated 19.07.2012, 08.10.2012, 30.08.2012, 21.08.2014 and 14.02.2015 (Annexure-5 series). Applicant was informed vide Notification dated 22.01.2016 issued by the Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-6) that as per the opinion of the Law Department, punishment of censure could not be imposed upon him after conclusion of the departmental proceeding since he has superannuated on 31.07.2011. Applicant has again represented on 19.11.2016 vide Annexure-7 with the same grievance before the Secretary, Home Department that his juniors have been granted Senior Selection Grade which was due to him with effect from 01.01.2011.

Learned CAT, taking note of the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals' Act and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bhoop Singh Versus Union of India & Others [AIR 1992 SC 1414], State of Uttaranchal and another versus Shri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others [2014 (2) SLR 688], State of Orissa Versus Pyarimohan Samantaray [(1977) 3 SCC 396] and State of T.N. Versus Seshachalam [(2007) 10 SCC 137], was not inclined to entertain his application. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of delay was rejected. The O.A. was also dismissed on the ground of limitation.

While advancing his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the Government of India Decisions / Instructions (Annexure-5 series) which relate to the conclusion of the disciplinary case / criminal prosecution and sealed cover procedure to be followed in case any officer is facing departmental proceeding. It further provides that in case any penalty is imposed on the Government servant as a result of disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the criminal prosecution, the findings of the sealed cover shall not be acted upon. Its contended that his case for promotion should have been considered by the next Screening Committee in the normal course. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only after the applicant came to know of the punishment of censure in 2016, he preferred the present original application not only for quashing of the order of censure, but also for grant of Senior Selection Grade with effect from the date his juniors were granted such benefit. Learned Tribunal has erroneously rejected his application on the ground of delay.

Learned counsel for the Union of India and State Government both have opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the applicant was conscious of the grant of Senior Selection Grade to his juniors since July, 2012 which is his main grievance, but he only approached the learned CAT after five years. Applicant was found guilty in the departmental proceeding, though punishment of censure could not be imposed because of his retirement. As such, imposition of penalty could not make any difference to the case of the petitioner since he has retired during pendency of the departmental proceedings in which he was found guilty. Once he was found guilty, his claim for grant of Senior Selection Grade could not be taken up by opening the sealed cover after his retirement. Therefore, communication dated 22.01.2016 (Annexure-6) does not make any difference, so far as the delay in approaching the learned CAT with the grievance regarding denial of his Senior Selection Grade is concerned. Impugned order is, therefore, well-reasoned and requires no interference.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant material facts on record. We have also gone through the impugned order. Applicant was found guilty in the departmental proceedings, though order of punishment of censure could not be imposed and as such it was of no consequence once he had retired on 31.07.2011. Case of the petitioner could not be taken up for grant of Senior Selection Grade since he was facing departmental proceedings during the period 17.07.2010 till his superannuation on 31.07.2011. Applicant despite being conscious of the grant of Senior Selection Grade to his junior since July, 2012, as his representation at Annexure-5 series disclose never approached the learned CAT raising his grievance within time, till 2017. Communication contained at Annexure-6 dated 22.01.2016 therefore, would be of no significance in counting the period of limitation. Therefore, learned CAT had rightly refused to entertain the instant O.A on the ground of delay in approaching the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.