Ramanand Pandey vs State of M.P. and Others

Hon. Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) whereby he was reverted from the post of Agriculture Development Officer.

The petitioner submits that by order dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure P-2) the petitioner was promoted on the post of Agriculture Development Officer. The said order was cancelled without affording any opportunity and without assigning any reason. The learned counsel submits that it is stated in the return that on the basis of representation of petitioner (Annexure R-1) the department presumed that disciplinary proceeding was pending against him on the date of promotion and on this pretext he was reverted. Shri Singhal submits that Annexure R-4 dated 28.7.2006 shows that it is alleged against the petitioner that he was facing a disciplinary proceeding and on that basis he preferred R-1. However, later on, he came to know that the entire action was closed in the year 1985. It is clear from the document dated 1.1.1985 filed alongwith the rejoinder. Shri Singhal submits that he has categorically pleaded that on the date of consideration for promotion there was neither disciplinary proceeding nor criminal case pending or contemplated against him and, therefore, the impugned order is per-se bad in law.

Shri Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents fairly stated that no material is available in the return to show that the petitioner was facing any disciplinary proceeding or criminal case on the date of consideration for promotion (Annexure P-2). In other words, the learned Dy.G.A. fairly submits that alongwith the return neither charge sheet nor challan of criminal case is filed to show that on the date of petitioner''s promotion he was under cloud.

It is settled in law that right of consideration for promotion is a statutory as well as constitutional/fundamental right flowing from Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The said right cannot be curtailed even in cases employee is facing disciplinary action or criminal case. In those cases also the employee is required to be considered but his fate is to be kept in the sealed cover.

In 1991 SC 2010 Union of India Vs. K.V.Jankiraman, the Apex Court held that the sealed cover procedure can also be resorted to only in the event a charge sheet in a disciplinary proceeding and a challan in a criminal case is issued/filed. In the present case, the respondents are not in a position to demonstrate that on the date of consideration of petitioner for promotion and issuance of order Annexure P-2, the petitioner was either facing disciplinary action or criminal case. Needless to mention that respondent department is custodian of the entire record including service record of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, merely because petitioner has made a bald statement in Annexure R-1, it was not sufficient to cancel the petitioner''s promotion order. In absence of any material to show that petitioner was facing a disciplinary action or criminal case, the order Annexure P-1 cannot be upheld. There is no other justiciable reason assigned in the return for cancelling the said order.

In this view of the matter, Annexure P-1 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner''s promotion as Agriculture Development Officer from the date he was promoted vide Annexure P-2 with all consequential benefits.

The petition is allowed. No costs.