KRUTIBASH MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.9.1998 in O.A.No. 773 of 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, rejecting his prayer for giving him retrospective promotion and financial benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was recruited as a Senior Observer on 22.4.1974 and was posted in the office of the Deputy Director General of Meteorology in the Regional Meteorological Centre, Calcutta (opposite party No. 3) which is under the Director General of Meteorology India Meteology Department, New Delhi (opposite party No. 2). On 8.3.1983 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Scientific Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400 2300.00. As per the gradation list of Scientific Assistants in the Department published on 11.7.1988, vide Annexure 1, the petitioner was placed at serial number 1386 and one Amarjit Singh was placed next below him at serial number 1387. On 22.8.1990 the petitioner received a communication from the Regional Meteorological Centre, Calcutta, vide Annexure 2, intimating him that the entries made in his Confidential Report for the year ending 31.3.1990 were adverse. It revealed that in respect of seven columns, the remark 'Satisfactory' has been noted, and . the petitioner had been advised to exert himself to get over the defects and to earn better remarks in the future years. He was advised to make representation, if any, against the 'adverse' remarks. On 10.9.1990 the petitioner filed a representation, vide Annexure 11/1, pursuant to Annexure 2 before the competent authority stating that the remark 'Satisfactory' was not adverse. On 30.4.1991 the Regional Meteorological Centre, Calcutta intimated the petitioner that the entries made in Annexure 2 were not 'adverse' against the petitioner. On 26.8.1992, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges, vide Annexure 3, with imputation of misconduct under rule 16 of the C. C. S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965. For his misconduct and misbehaviour a departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner on the report of one R. K. Nayak, Senior Observer, fo the effect that on 29.1.1992 the petitioner hurled abusive words at him and attempted to assault him by means of Chappal. When the said departmental proceeding was pending enquiry, the petitioner was intimated on 2.7.1993, vide Annexure 4, that in his Confidential Report for the period from 1.4.1992 to 31.3.1993 an entry had been made that 'disciplinary action had been initiated against him for his misbehaviour with one of his junior colleagues'. On 7.8.1993 the petitioner filed a representation for expunction of the 'adverse' entry in his C.C.R. for the period from 1.4.1992 to 31.3.1993. The petitioner was intimated on 27.9.1993, vide Annexure 5, that the entry communicated to him, vide Annexure 4, was not 'adverse' and was only a statement of fact. After conclusion of the enquiry in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner the competent authority inflicted punishment of stoppage of two annual increments of pay without cumulative effect on 30.4.1994, vide Annexure 6. On 7.11.1994 the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said punishment before the Director General of Meteorology, opposite party No. 2, and on 30.9.1995 the said appellate authority reduced the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect to stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner was promoted on officiating basis to the post of Professional Assistant, vide orders dated 5.6.1995 and 28.8.1995 on eightynine days basis, as per Annexures 15 and 15/1, and he joined the said . post on 5.6.1995. On 28.11.1996, the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DPC') considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professional Assistant, but his name was not recommended and the name of his junior, Amarjit Singh, who was at serial number 1387 in the gradation list, and the names of fourteen others were recommended and on the basis of that recommendation, Amarjit Singh was promoted to the post of Professional Assistant on 24.1.1996, vide Annexure 8. Against the said supersession, the petitioner filed a representation on 15.10.1997 to the concerned authority, vide Annexure 9. Before receiving any communication from the authority on his representation the petitioner filed the O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 17.12.1997. According to the petitioner, the authorities overlooked the circulars of the Central Government issued from time to time providing guidelines for promotion of employees and that the DPC had illegally not recommended his case for promotion.

(3.) MR . Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel (Central) supported the impugned order and contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the same so as to warrant interference.