Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) I.A. No. 8528 of 2013
(2.) BY way of instant interlocutory application, petitioner has sought to incorporate the proposed amendments in the writ petition stating that by way of counter affidavit filed in the instant case it has come to his notice that the respondents have now proposed to scrap the panel for the post of Director(Technical), C.C.L. it is submitted that petitioner has made a prayer in the main writ application for quashing of the order dated 8.8.2013 (Annexure -18) inviting application for the post of Director(Technical), C.C.L. which is in teeth of the judgments passed in the petitioner's case in W.P.S. No. 5099 of 2009 and W.P.S. No. 283 of 2010 dated 22.2.2012, which was also affirmed in L.P.A. No. 255 of 2012. In the counter affidavit the respondents have brought on record that the petitioner faced a departmental proceeding initiated on 8.12.2010 in relation to certain allegation while he was working as Chief General Manager, N.K. Area, C.C.L. in the year 2008, which relates to gross irregularities in the matter of contractual coal transportation. It has been stated on their behalf that the said proceeding ended in censure of petitioner vide order dated 13.7.2011 annexed as Annexure -A to the said supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 on 4.12.2013. It is further stated that in view of the Office Memo dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure -B), if such a minor punishment has been imposed upon any employee, no vigilance clearance can be given in his favour for the period of 3 years. Apart from that it has been stated that petitioner was implicated in a C.B.I. case being R.C. Case No. 4(A)/2012 -D in which final form was submitted in favour of the petitioner but C.B.I. has recommended initiation of Departmental proceeding against him. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent - Union of India and C.C.L. that thereafter, petitioner has been implicated in a C.B.I. case in relation to offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for amassing disproportionate asset. The instant punishment order dated 13.7.2011 was not subject matter of the writ petitions decided by this Court on 22.2.2012 in the petitioner's case. It is therefore submitted that the requirement for appointment on such post is that the employee should not have faced any punishment minor or major over a period of 3 years and 5 years respectively. In the instant case, since the petitioner had faced minor punishment in the year 2011 and also criminal case has been lodged against him, therefore, vigilance clearance has been denied.
(3.) HOWEVER , it is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the vigilance clearance was denied, on account of earlier departmental proceeding. The said denial of vigilance clearance cannot be made basis for refusal to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment from the same panel as per the directions issued in the writ petitions preferred by the petitioner earlier.;