- (1.) Petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 14-12-2009 passed by the Govt., Department of Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Dairy Development, Punjab appointing respondent No. 2 as the Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab and relieving the petitioner from the additional charge of the Director, Animal Husbandry. A further direction is sought in the nature of Mandamus for appointment of the petitioner on promotion to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry in view of his seniority and eligibility for the post.
(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are being noticed hereunder :- Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director by direct recruitment on selection by the P.P.S.C in the year 1990, whereas respondent No. 2 was appointed as Deputy Director vide order dated 2-4-1998. An FIR No. 419 was registered against the petitioner on 25-12-1996 and he was placed under suspension. While the petitioner was facing trial, he was required to be considered along with private respondents for promotion to the post of Joint Director. A D.P.C was held on 7-12-2000 for according consideration for promotion. In view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings, petitioner's consideration was kept in a sealed cover. Petitioner came to be acquitted from the criminal charge vide judgment dated 24-12-2002. He made a representation for opening of sealed cover and to give effect to the recommendations of the D.P.C. Receiving no response petitioner filed CWP No. 13120 of 2005. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 23-8-2005 with a direction to the respondent-State to take a final decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner by passing a speaking order. On consideration of the representation pursuant to the directions of the Court, respondents passed order dated 30-8-2005 (Annexure P-4) rejecting the representation holding that petitioner was acquitted on technical grounds and it has been decided to re- examine the case through a regular departmental inquiry by issuing a charge- sheet under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970. Representation for treating the suspension period as duty period and promotion to the post of Joint Director was also filed. A separate charge- sheet of the even date was also issued. Aggrieved of the action of the respondents, petitioner filed CWP No. 15064 of 2005. This petition was allowed vide judgment dated 24-7-2006 and a direction was issued to the respondents to open the sealed cover to determine whether the petitioner has been found suitable for promotion to the post of Joint Director, Animal Husbandry. It was further directed that in case the D.P.C. had concluded that the petitioner had fulfilled the prescribed bench mark, the respondents shall give effect to the same by promoting the petitioner in the year of re-framed seniority. This judgment was challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment of Division Bench was stayed. During the pendency of the S.L.P before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were concluded and petitioner was awarded 'Censure'. On that basis the S.L.P filed by the State was withdrawn. In the meantime, one Dr. Baljit Singh Sidhu who was holding the post of Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab retired from the post but he was given extension w.e.f. 1-5-2009 till further orders. The order of extension granted to Dr.Baljit Singh Sidhu was challenged by the petitioner in CWP No. 5962 of 2009 titled as Dr. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab & others. Under the interim directions passed by the Court, extension granted to Dr. Baljit Singh Sidhu was cancelled vide order dated 30-7-2009 (Annexure P-6/T) and by a separate order of the same date, the additional charge of the post of Director, Animal Husbandry was given to the petitioner who had been promoted as Joint Director in the meantime along with respondent No. 2 vide order dated 15-1-2010 (Annexure P-8/T) retrospectively w.e.f. 7-12-2000.
(3.) It is not in dispute that as Joint Director petitioner was senior than respondent No. 2. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition a D.P.C was held on 19-11-2009 for according consideration for promotion to the post of Director. D.P.C. recommended respondent No. 2. Accepting recommendations an order dated 14-12-2009 impugned in this petition has been passed, whereby respondent No. 2 was promoted as Director.;