Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THESE two writ applications preferred by the petitioner raise common question of facts and law, and therefore, are being adjudicated upon by this common judgment.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The petitioner was initially appointed and joined on the post of Typist on 19th May, 1972, in the pay scale of Rs. 120 -10 -240, with the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', for short). Promotion was accorded to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade -II (Ministerial) on 24th March, 1976. He was posted at N.K. Electricals, his services were utilized in a Godown of a private party, hired by the respondent -Corporation for the purpose of storage of the food grains, and served there with effect from 7th July, 1976 to 29th July, 1976. In view of the formation of a new Cadre as Accounts Cadre in 1977, the petitioner was transferred as Assistant Grade -II (Accounts). On 29th August, 1983, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade -I (Accounts). However, he was not extended with any posting order while according posting orders to others promoted along with the petitioner, vide office order dated 17th September, 1983. On 22nd August, 1984, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet for major penalty. On conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer returned a finding of charge "not proved" on both the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 11th September, 1986, though did not disagree with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, but imposed the penalty of 'censure'. On appeal by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25/26th June, 1992, confirmed the order maintaining the penalty of 'censure' and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner, however, was accorded promotion vide order dated 13th October, 1997, with effect from 1983, while implementing the judgment(s) of the Delhi High Court in a batch of writ applications decided on 14th January, 1992/11th January, 1994; which were unsuccessfully challenged by the Corporation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The promotion was withdrawn vide order dated 22nd April, 1999, for pendency of the vigilance case at the relevant time, which ultimately culminated into initiation of the enquiry proceedings and imposition of penalty of 'censure' on 11th September, 1986, as aforesaid. The petitioner was accorded promotion vide order dated 25th November, 1999, with effect from 1986, which is a subject matter of challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 457 of 2000.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application(s), has assailed the legality and validity of the action of the respondents in not according promotion to the petitioner as a consequence of order dated 29th August, 1983, while according promotion and posting to other six candidates, as would be reflected from office order dated 17th September, 1983. The learned counsel would further submit that the reason for not according promotion to the petitioner as later on surfaced was pendency of a vigilance case. The petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry and the Enquiry Officer returned a negative finding on both the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is further contended that the Disciplinary Authority vide impugned order dated 11th September, 1986, imposed the penalty of censure contrary to the settled principles of law so much so that the Enquiry Officer on both the charges returned a negative finding (not proved). The observations made by the Disciplinary Authority that the charges against the petitioner were "not fully proved", are absolutely misconceived and cannot be sustained in the face of findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer.;