2016 (5) TMI 1447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....OA has been filed with the following prayer: "(a) Call for the original file(s)/record(s) of the respondents vis-à-vis the DPC proceedings/screening proceedings and the file(s) leading to the impugned orders; (b) Declare the Order No.171 of 2015 issued vide F.No. A- 32011/2/2014-Ad.VI dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure-A Impugned) to the extent the same does not contain the name of the applicant herein as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and non est in the eyes of law; (c) Declare that the applicant is entitled for being given the promotion to the grade of Commissioner of Income Tax w.e.f. 16.9.2015, i.e., when the respondent No.3 has been promoted vide order dated 16.9.2015 (Annexure-A Impugned) with all cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty proceedings against the officer, and therefore, the case of the applicant for promotion has been put on hold. According to the learned counsel the existing instructions issued by the DOP&T on 14.09.1992 provides that at the time of consideration of promotion of a Government servant the following category of cases should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). These are (i) Government servants under suspension (ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and (iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending. 4. Only in these cases the finding of the D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HA to get the certified copies of the listed documents, statement of witnesses (with their addresses) and factual report on the article of charge, so that action may be initiated against the officer. These documents are still awaited from the MHA. 6. We have heard the learned counsels and perused the record. It is an admitted position of the respondents that at the time of holding DPC the DGIT (Vigilance) had accorded vigilance clearance and there was no disciplinary case pending against the applicant. In para 4 (viii) and (ix) of the counter reply it has been categorically stated that the case of the applicant did not fall under any one of the three categories mentioned in DOP&T OM dated 14.09.1992. After a query raised by the ACC, the ....