ASHOK KUMAR NARANG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking a declaration that this promotion to the post of Chief Enforcement Officer has become final and it cannot be reviewed any more.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The applicant was initially appointed as Assistant in the Directorate of Enforcement in December, 1975 and the applicant was promoted to the post of Enforcement Officer in December, 1982. Thereafter, vide order dt. 11.11.1998, he was promoted to the present post of Chief Enforcement Officer. The applicant has stated that as Enforcement Officer when he was interrogating a foreign exchange racketeer on 28/29th February, 1992 the said person made a bid to escape by jumping from the window of the 6th floor of Delhi Zonal Office of respondent No. 2 which resulted in his death. It has been further mentioned by the applicant that the deceased at that point of time was a proclaimed offender for evading the execution of the COFEPOSA detention orders in respect of the smuggling case detected by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The deceased had also served a term of 4 years imprisonment at Cyprus for using forged Travellers' Cheques and counterfeit passport. When the report of death of foreign exchange racketeer was flashed in the Newspaper, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India took cognizance and ordered an inquiry by an Additional Sessions Judge. Thereafter, on the basis of the enquiry report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed CBI to register an FIR and to investigate the case in accordance with law. The CBI filed a charge sheet in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi for alleged commission of offences under Sections 306 and 330 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. This case is still pending in the Court.

(3.) THE applicant has submitted that the chargesheet filed by the CBI in the Criminal Court in December, 1993 was still pending when he became eligible, in terms of his seniority for promotion to the post of Chief Enforcement Officer by the end of the year 1977. THE DPC which met on 13.11.1997 recommended the applicant for promotion. THE applicant has contended that the DPC did not keep its recommendations in a sealed cover in terms of DOPT O.M. dl. 14.9.1992, but made a specific recommendation for his promotion. THE Director of Enforcement i.e. R2, promoted the applicant to the post of Chief Enforcement Officer vide order dt. 11.11.1998 and the applicant took charge on 23.11.1998 and has been holding that post since then. THE applicant has mentioned that one Shri P.V. Balasubramaniam Enforcement Officer, against whom departmental proceedings were pending, was not given promotion as Chief Enforcement Officer and the DPC kept its recommendations pertaining to Shri P.V. Balasubramaniam in a sealed cover as per the instructions contained in DOPT O.M. dt. 14.9.1992. It has been further mentioned by the applicant that charge against Shri P.V. Balasubramaniam was of corruption and when he made a representation stating therein that the applicant has been given a promotion despite pendency of criminal case the respondents referred the matter for consideration by a Review DPC which arrived at conclusion that the facts of the case of the applicant and of Shri P.V. Balasubramaniam were not identical or similar and as such there was no case to disturb the continuance of the applicant from the promoted post of Chief Enforcement Officer. Thus, the review DPC which met on 30.10.2001 confirmed the recommendations of the earlier DPC and action taken thereon by the respondents.