RANJEET KUMAR Vs. CANARA BANK
LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-53
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 19,2014

RANJEET KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
CANARA BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SABINA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion in view of policy (Annexure P -2) and promote him from the day when other similarly situated persons as the petitioners, had been promoted.
(2.) CASE of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the Canara Bank on 15.3.1999 as Probationary Officer at Bangalore. Thereafter, petitioner served as Manager of the bank at different places. Petitioner was promoted as Manager Scale -II with effect from 10.6.2006. As per policy (Annexure P -2), petitioner cleared the Post Graduate Programme in Public Management and Policy on 28.3.2009. Petitioner was to be placed two scales higher than he was getting before proceeding for the course. Rahul Bhave who was serving the respondent bank as Scale -II Manager in the year 2008, had also cleared the course and was promoted as Scale -IV Divisional Manager on 25.5.2009 in pursuance to the policy (Annexure P -2). Rahul Bhave served as Scale -IV Divisional Manager with the bank and was, thereafter, promoted as Scale -V Assistant General Manager with effect from 19.6.2012. Rajesh Kumar Singh who was serving as Scale -II Manager in the year 2007, was also promoted as Scale -IV Divisional Manager in the year 2008 and thereafter was promoted as Scale -V Assistant General Manager in the year 2011. However, case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion at the time when Rahul Bhave was promoted on 25.5.2009. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had cleared the course on 28.3.2009 and was entitled for promotion in pursuance to Annexure P -2. Rahul Bhave, who was similarly situated as the petitioner, had been promoted on 25.5.2009 as Scale -IV Divisional Manager whereas case of the petitioner had not been considered for promotion. Learned counsel has further submitted that sealed cover procedure was liable to be adopted. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Union of India etc. versus K.V.Jankiraman etc. AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2010(1)', wherein it was held that promotion could not be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings were pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, the disciplinary/criminal proceedings at the relevant time must be pending at the stage when charge memo/charge sheet had already been issued to the employee. The preliminary investigations take an inordinate long time and particularly when they had been initiated at the instance of interested persons. The sealed cover procedure was liable to be resorted only after the charge memo/charge sheet was issued.
(3.) LEARNED counsel has next placed reliance on 'Union of India versus Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan 1998(2) CLR 554', wherein it was held as under: - "The question, however, stands concluded by a Three Judge decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. K.B.Jankiraman and Ors. 1991 (4) SCC 109 : 1991 (3) S.C.T 317 in which the same view has been taken. We are in respectful agreement with the above decision. We are also of the opinion that if on the date on which the name of a person is considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the higher post, such person is neither under suspension nor has any departmental proceedings been initiated against him, his name, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the select list and the "sealed cover" procedure cannot be adopted. The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can be placed in a "sealed cover' only if on the date of consideration of the name for promotion, the departmental proceedings had been initiated or were pending or on its conclusion, final orders had not been passed by the appropriate authority. It is obvious that if the officers, against whom the departmental proceedings were initiated, is ultimately exonerated, the sealed cover containing the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee would be opened, and the recommendation would be given effect to." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.