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.