NARESH K GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 14.6.2002 of Railway Board appointing his junior to the grade of Rs. 22400-24500 the applicant has preferred the present O.A.

(2.) The case of the applicant in brief is that he has been given to understand that his name has also been empanelled by the Competent Authority on the recommendations of the DPC but by passing him his junior has been promoted. The case of the applicant is that withholding of his promotion is totally erroneous. Para 2 of Railway Board Circular RBE 14/93 lists the three circumstances in which sealed cover approach case be adopted. Paragraph 6 of Office Order 31 of 2.8.1999 clarifies that promotions or confirmations should not be withheld merely because as regular case has been registered by the CBI against a gazetted officer or that complaint against him are being looked into by departmental agency. The sealed cover procedure could not have been adopted in his case. The first stage advice of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC for short) was received on 8.7.2002, but has been sent back to CVC against normal procedure and practice. He has been given awards in the recent past.

(3.) THE learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant has argued that the sealed cover procedure could not have been adopted in the instant case. Even if a decision to initiate a departmental proceedings was reportedly taken on 29.4.2002, it was a provisional opinion of the Disciplinary Authority and the first stage advice of CVC is must in such cases. No charge sheet was issued immediately thereafter. THE CVC had exonerated the applicant in the first advice but on reconsideration has agreed to the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings. THE applicant had filed O.A. 735/2002 after the receipt of first advice of CVC for quashing the action of respondents, in sending back the case to CVC. THE said O.A. which has been disposed of by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 20.11.2002 directing the Competent Authority to take a decision after application of mind. THE respondents have thereafter issued a chargesheet which has been challenged by filing yet another O.A. It is stated that the case of the applicant is fully covered by the decision of CAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of D.K. Shrivastava v. UOI and Anr. 2002(3) SLJ (CAT) 57. THE said judgment, was challenged by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Gujarat and thereafter an SLP was also filed in the Supreme Court. THE said SLP was dismissed and accordingly, the decision in D.K. Shrivastava's case (supra) has also become the law of the land,