2019 (4) TMI 2184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....artmental Promotional Committee ('DPC') at its meeting held on 19th May 2017. 2. The facts in brief are set out in the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondents themselves. It is not in dispute that the aforementioned DPC to consider the promotion of the Petitioner from the post of 2-I/C to Commandant was held on 19th May 2017 for the Vacancy Year 2017-18. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner was not empanelled in the DPC held on that date. What is also not in dispute is that major penalty proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner later on 28th August 2017 and not as of the date on which the DPC was held i.e. on 19th May 2017. 3. The justification offered in the counter-affidavit is that in connection with the propos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure." 6. In the said case it was argued by the Union of India, that where the charges are serious, it would not be in the interests of the administration to reward such employee with a promotion. Rejecting the said plea, the Supreme Court held: "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 ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Petitioner for promotion. He also sought to place reliance on the decision in Union of India v. S. K. Goel (2007) 14 SCC 641 and in particular the observation therein that: "DPC enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it. Hence, interference by High Court is not called for.' 9. The above observations in S.K. Goel were in an entirely different context. The factual matrix in the case was as under: "In the instant case, respondent No.1 had received no adverse remarks and had rather been graded at the level of the prescribed bench mark of 'above average', therefore, as rightly pointed out by learned Additional Sol....