TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he refusal to grant NFFU was rejected. The petitioner prays that he be granted NFFU with effect from 01.01.2019. Case of the Petitioner: 2. To put it briefly, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined the Border Security Force (in short, 'BSF') in the rank of Assistant Commandant (DE) on 01.10.1987, and was promoted to the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) with effect from 26.06.2012. 3. The respondent no.1 notified the Non-Functional Financial Upgradation Scheme vide DoPT O.M. No. AB.14017/64/2008- Estt.(RR) dated 24.04.2009. The Paragraph 5 of the Annexure I to the said O.M. states that all instructions concerning grant of Non-Functional Upgradation presently applicable in the case of grant of Non-Functional Sel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t for the General Security Force Court (in short, 'GSFC') was finally issued to the petitioner on 10.02.2020. On the same day, the petitioner also preferred a representation to the Director General, BSF seeking grant of NFFU, which came to be rejected by the Order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.2 stating that the Internal Screening Committee has placed the case of the petitioner for grant of NFFU in a sealed cover. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the sealed cover procedure can be followed by the Internal Screening Committee only in the three limited circumstances as stipulated in the O.M. dated 14.09.1992 and the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. K.V Jankiraman & Ors., (1991) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed cover with the remark that further action in this regard will be taken once the disciplinary action pending against the petitioner is finalized. The claim of the petitioner for NFFU was, therefore, kept in abeyance. Subsequently, charge sheet dated 10.02.2020 was issued to him, and the petitioner has been found guilty of two out of three charges leveled against him, and has been sentenced with the following punishment by the GSFC: "(i) to take rank and precedence as if his appointment as Deputy Inspector General bore the date 26th day of June 2017, and, (ii) To be severely Reprimanded" 7. The said Order has been confirmed on 10.11.2021 by the Confirming Authority, and the sentence was promulgated on 12.11.2021. 8. The learned cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstructions concerning grant of non-functional up-gradation presently applicable in the case of grant of NFSG to officers of Group 'A' Services would apply in the event of penalty, disciplinary proceedings, suspension etc." 12. As far as the grant of NFSG is concerned, it was governed by the O.M. No. 22038/1/2002 - Estt (D) dated 08.01.2003 which, inter alia, provided as under: "2. It is clarified that the Internal Selection Committee, while considering the issue of grant of NFSG in accordance with the criteria laid down in this Department's O.M. no. 28038/1/88-Estt D dated the 9th October, 1989, shall also place the recommendations for grant of NFSG in a sealed cover, if the Officer (s) concerned are covered by any of the following....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions." (Emphasis Supplied) 14. Applying the above to the facts of the present case, as on the date of the Meeting of the Internal Screening Committee, that is, 17.10.2019, none of the above three situations, which could lead to the sealed cover procedure to be adopted, existed. The Internal Screening Committee, there....