- (1.) THE applicant, Shri Sunil Kumar Pal Chaudhuri, Depot Stores Keeper, Grade III, Office of the District Controller of Stores, Receipt Branch, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, Chittaranjan, has approached the Tribunal for relief by way of cancelling the Letter No. GMA/Stores/130 Pt. III, dated 27 -5 -1986 (Annexure 'F') from the Office of the Chief Personnel Officer, stating that he cannot be considered for promotion from the post of Depot Store Keeper Grade III to the post of Depot Store Keeper Grade II as a major penalty proceeding is contemplated against him. Consequentially he prays that promotion to the post of Depot Store Keeper Grade II with effect from 1 -8 -1983, the date from which the post was converted from Selection to Non -Selection, with benefits of proforma promotion and consequential promotion thereafter under the Next Below Rule as given to his juniors.
(2.) THE case was argued on the grounds that the said letter, dated 27 -5 -86 is wholly inconsistent with the record of service of the applicant. The reasons for withholding promotion on the basis of contemplated disciplinary proceedings for major penalty is wholly bad in law and without jurisdiction. It was also argued that the action was borne out of mala fide on the part of some one in the organisation. The learned Counsel for the applicant dealt briefly with the case history of the CBI Case No. RC 45/74, Spl. No.4177 (Annexure H) to the application. This gives the details of the case that is alleged to have taken place in 1972. It is the case of the applicant that he had been summoned as a Prosecution Witness in the same As evidenced by Annexure 'R' (2) to the application he had also awarded the Best Worker Prize in 1976 when the CBI had completed investigation and was processing the case against the accused persons he received the letter, dated 27 -5 -1986, there was no mention whatsoever at any point of time that there was a CBI case against him. The learned Counsel also questioned the validity of withholding his original from because of contemplated disciplinary proceeding and prayed for relief.
(3.) THE counsel for the respondents stated that the first DPC after when the post was converted from Selection to Non -Selection, was he 1985, and the DPC had considered the applicant and found him fit promotion. However, in view of the Railway Board's Confdl. Cir. Letter No. 76/Vig.I/VP/1/2, dated 21 -1 -1977 that without obtaining clearance from the Vigilance Branch, promotion should not be made applicant could not be promoted. It was conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the Department had otherwise found him fit promotion. She was not in a position to explain the abnormal delay years after the event had taken place, and 14 years after the said invention had been completed, before issuing the charge sheet. Our attention drawn by the learned Counsel for the applicant to the Railway Board confidential D.O. letter No. E(D&A)26 RG 6 -41, dated 3 -4 -1986 addressed to the Chief Personnel Officer, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, Chittaranjan wherein it has been stated that there is an imperative need to cut down delays in completion of disciplinary proceedings and prescribing the schedule for completion of major penalty disciplinary proceedings in days. In this context, the delay appears to be even more glaring. In context he gave a citation, 1986\(2) Supreme Court Cases 373, State of Gujarat vs. S. Tripathy in which the Supreme Court has held that "mere pendency of investigation and inquiry by vigilance should not be allowed to stand in the way of promotion and upheld the conclusion of the High Court that there was no material evidence for overlooking the respond in the said case for promotion to the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale." In that view merely on the ground that a major penalty proceeding is contemplated against the applicant to say that he cannot be promoted, is bad in law and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned confidential Letter No. GMA/Stores/130/Pt. III, dated 27 -5 -1 is accordingly set aside. Consequentially we direct the respondents to give effect to the recommendation of the 1985 DPC which found the applicant fit for promotion with effect from the date from which his immediate junior in the panel was promoted, or if there is no junior on the panel, then from the date of the D PC meeting with all consequential monetary benefits including promotions, if any. This shall be done within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. This will not preclude the respondents from pursuing the disciplinary proceedings though we hope that the time schedule prescribed by the Railway Board vide their Letter No. E(D&A) 86 RG6 -41, dated 3 -4 -1986 shall be followed strictly.;