AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avneesh Jhingan, J
This petition is filed raising a grievance that promotion order of the petitioner dated 17.02.2017 has not been modified giving effect to the order of the Appellate Authority dated 24.03.2017.
The relevant facts are that on 24.01.2000 the petitioner was appointed Lower Division Clerk (LDC). On 19.08.2013, petitioner was served charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1958’). The proceedings culminated in stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The punishment order dated 02.12.2016 was challenged in appeal. Vide order dated 24.03.2017, the appellate authority reduced the punishment to stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect.
During pendency of the charge-sheet, the eligible candidates were considered for promotion to the post of Judicial Assistant. However, recommendation qua the petitioner was kept in the sealed cover till disposal of the enquiry.
Taking into consideration the punishment order, the petitioner was given promotion against the vacancy in the year 2015-2016 vide order dated 17.02.2017. The petitioner filed representation dated 06.08.2022 for review of the promotion order in view of the appellate order dated 24.03.2017. The communication dated 08.06.2023 was received by the petitioner that the representation has been rejected after consideration. Hence, the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not found eligible against the vacancy of 2013-14 and 2014-15 in view of the stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect whereas, this order no longer survives. The grievance is that the order of appellate authority has not been given effect to.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner had earlier made two representations for challenging the seniority list. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has produced the copy of consideration of the representation of the petitioner. The contention is that the representation for modification of the promotion order was submitted after finalization of the seniority list.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings and perused the record produced by counsel for respondent No. 1.
Consideration of the petitioner for promotion was kept in abeyance due to pendency of the enquiry. Ultimately, taking into account the punishment order of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect the petitioner was promoted against vacancy of 2015-16.
It is an admitted fact that the order of punishment dated 02.12.2016 no longer exists and the punishment was reduced by the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority was required to be given effect to but there is no such consideration for rejecting the representation of the petitioner.
The contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the representation was submitted after finalization of the seniority list lacks merit. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were party before the appellate authority and the order of the appellate authority was to be implemented by respondent No. 1. Consequently, the rejection of the representation of petitioner is set aside. The representation of the petitioner shall be considered afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
The writ petition is allowed.