RAMA CHANDRA PADHI Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the order dated 9.10.2013 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 59 of 2012 filed by the present petitioner under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Facts of the case :

(2.) The case of the unsuccessful petitioner in brief is as follows :

(3.) It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner was implicated in a CBI case by the opposite parties under section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2008 on the false allegation as the petitioner was fighting against the corruption in the public sector unit NALCO. Although CBI submitted charge sheet in late, the name of the petitioner was kept in sealed cover in the month of June, 2008. Petitioner challenged the illegal action of the opposite parties and DPC before the Central Vigilance Commissioner (hereinafter called 'CVC'), New Delhi. The CVC referred the matter to the Chief Vigilance Officer (hereinafter called 'CVO'), NALCO for enquiry. It is stated that the CVO after completion of enquiry recommended for promotion of the petitioner with retrospective effect with reference to DPC held in the year 2008 vide Annexure-1. The opposite parties also sent additional documents to the CVO against the petitioner and that was also enquired and the CVO submitted additional report on 26.10.2009 before the CVC. It is alleged that the CVO and the CVC after going through the reports, recommended the DPC to give promotion to the petitioner with retrospective effect. Thereafter purportedly a meeting was held on the application made by the petitioner with the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Union Government. In that meeting the authorities of NALCO and the officials of the Ministry of Mines prepared Minutes of the meeting vide Annexure-4 where under, the Ministry sought report from the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the NALCO sought legal opinion from the Legal Advisor of NALCO and the Legal Advisor opined on 19.11.2008 that the sealed cover procedure adopted by the DPC ignoring the promotion of the petitioner was not proper as it has not followed the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 . In spite of opinion of the Legal Advisor, recommendation of the CVC and the instruction of the Secretary, Mines, petitioner were not given his due promotion with retrospective effect for which the petitioner was compelled to file Original Application No. 486 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called 'CAT') and prayed therein to declare his promotion to the post of DGM with retrospective effect i.e. from 1.7.2008 and grant all arrear benefits from that date.