R.S. Mongia, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Grade -II(D) with the respondent -Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), was issued a charge -sheet on May 09, 1991 for initiating proceedings for a major penalty. Since the reply to the charge -sheet was not found satisfactory a regular enquiry was ordered to go into the charges. However, on September 18, 1991, an order of promotion was issued promoting the petitioner as Assistant Grade -I (D) by the Zonal Manager (North), FCI. A copy of the order has been appended as Annexure P. 1. However, actual promotion was not given to the petitioner by the Senior Regional Manager, FCI, Punjab Region, Chandigarh on account of the pendency of the enquiry, as aforesaid. The petitioner filed a representation that pendency of the enquiry was no impediment to actually giving promotion to the petitioner as per order dated September 18, 1991. Since the representation did not bear any fruit, the petitioner filed CWP No, 16607 of 1992 in this Court for directing the respondents to actually and physically give promotion to the petitioner as Assistant Grade -I. That writ petition was disposed of at the motion stage by giving directions to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of three months. However, the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated April 20/22, 1993, by placing reliance on H. Qr. Circular No. 36/92 dated Dec. 17, 1992, read with Department of Personnel and Training Circular OM No. 22011/4/91 -Estt. (A) dated Sept. 14, 1992. However, it was mentioned in the order rejecting the representation that the petitioner would be promoted in case he was completely exonerated of the charges levelled against him in the charge -sheet dated May 09,1991, which was being enquired into by the enquiry officer, After holding the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on February 26, 1995, holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. A show cause notice dated March 02, 1995 was issued to the petitioner wherein it was mentioned by the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation that he tentatively intended to discharge with the enquiry report dated Feb. 26,1995, on certain grounds and the petitioner was given an opportunity to make representation if he so desired. A copy of this notice has been appended as Annexure P -3 with the writ petition. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice. The Senior Regional Manager did not agree with the reply of the petitioner and inflicted a major penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and also ordered recovery of Rs. 14515.30 from the petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER filed a statutory departmental appeal under Regulation 68 of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 against the order of imposition of penalty. The appeal was decided by Zonal Manager (North) FCI, New Delhi and vide order dated January 20/22, 1999, Annexure P. 5, exonerated the petitioner with all consequential benefits. On March 08, 1999, the petitioner made a representation to the Senior Regional Manager of the FCI that in view of the complete exoneration of the petitioner by the Appellate Authority with all consequential benefits the petitioner should now be given physical promotion to the rank of Assistant Grade -I, which was ordered on September 18, 1991. Since there was no response to the representation of the petitioner, he got served a legal notice also on June 03, 1991 which also did not bear any fruit. Hence the present writ petition. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) IT has been stated in the written statement that as per the order dated September 18, 1993, by which the petitioner was promoted, it had clearly been mentioned that "it may be ensured that no vigilance case is pending/contemplated against the official before the release of promotion orders by the concerned authority." Since there were five subsequent enquiries pending against the petitioner on different charges, out of which the charge -sheets in four cases were issued in 1998 and in one case where the charge -sheet was issued in 1993 and recovery of Rs. 7189.60 had been ordered, the petitioner could not be given physical promotion to the rank of Assistant Grade -I (D) pursuant to the order dated September 18, 1991.;