Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.08.28 11:25:09 +0530 2025:CGHC:42861-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5493 of 2025 1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Communication And Information Technology, Department Of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 2 - Chief Post Master General Cg Circle, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 3 - Superintendent Post Offices, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 … Petitioners versus Munnalal Prajapati S/o Late Narmada Prasad Prajapati Aged About 41 Years Sub-Post Master Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001 ... Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioners :Mr. Ramakant Mishra, D.S.G. with Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate For Respondent :None 2 DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 25.08 .2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The petitioners (Union of India and others) have filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 14/10/2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur allowing the Original Application No. 577/2012 (Munnalal Prajapati v. Union of India and Others) thereby, directing the present petitioners to declare the result of the respondent and give consequential relief to him in case he has secured qualifying marks and after ascertaining, his suitability for appoinment/promotion as Inspector, Post Office with prospective effect. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :- (i) In the year 2011, petitioners had issued a notification for the post of Inspector, Post 3 Office for which the respondent herein sought permission from the competent authority to participate in the same examination which was granted to him and he submitted his candidature on 20/07/2011 and appeared in the examination which was held on 15/10/2011 and 16/10/2011. (ii) The result of the said examination was declared on 04/04/2012, however, against the name of the respondent, the remark “provisionally allowed” was mentioned and no marks were declared. Subsequently, a charge- sheet dated 04/06/2012 was issued to the respondent by the petitioners and ultimately, after holding a departmental enquiry against him, penalty of “censure” was inflicted upon him by the Disciplinary Authority on 16/02/2015. (iii) Being aggrieved, the respondent herein filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein by its impugned order dated 14/10/2024, learned Tribunal held that though the examination was held on 15/10/2011 and 16/10/2011, the charge-sheet was issued on 14/06/2012 i.e. much later than the date of the examination and that too, after 4 conducting the departmental enquiry, punishment of “censure” has been inflicted upon the respondent herein and relying upon the DOP&T Circular dated 19/05/1984 wherein it has been stated that “the punishments of censure, recovery pecuniary loss and stopping of increment do not constitute a bar to promotion of an official provided, on the basis of overall assessment of his record of service, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommends his promotion to the next higher grade” allowed the application against which this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners herein. 3. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the Central Administrative Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in granting the application filed by the respondent herein by recording a perverse finding as since penalty of censure had been inflicted upon the respondent, therefore, he was not entitled for selection/promotion on the post of Inspector, Post Office and his result was rightly withheld, as such, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent, 5 though served. 5. We have heard leaned counsel for the petitioners, considered his submission and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. It is not in dispute that the permission to appear in the examination was granted to the respondent by the petitioners Department and accordingly, he appeared in the examination on 15/10/2011 and 16/10/2011 and the result of the examination was declared on 04/04/2012, however, respondent’s result was not declared on the ground that there was a departmental enquiry pending against him, however, charge-sheet was issued to him on 14/06/2012 and after conducting the departmental enquiry, he was inflicted with penalty of censure on 16/02/2015. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana1 has held that the decision to initiate departmental proceeding precedes service of charge-sheet and it has been observed as under :- “9. The question now, is : What is the stage, when it can be said, that ‘a 1 (1993) 3 SCC 196 6 decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings’? We have no doubt that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings cannot be subsequent to the issuance of the charge-sheet, since issue of the charge- sheet is a consequence of the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Framing the charge-sheet, is the first step taken for holding the enquiry into the allegations, on the decision taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The charge-sheet is framed on the basis of the allegations made against the government servant; the charge-sheet is then served on him to enable him to give his explanation; if the explanation is satisfactory, the proceedings are closed, otherwise, an enquiry is held into the charges; if the charges are not proved, the proceedings are closed and the government servant exonerated; but if the charges are proved, the penalty follows. Thus, the service of the charge-sheet on the government servant follows the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and it does not precede or coincide with that decision. The delay, if any, in service of the charge-sheet to the government servant, after it has been framed and despatched, does not have the effect of delaying initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, inasmuch as information to the government servant of the charges framed against him, by service of the charge-sheet, is not a part of the decision-making process of the authorities for initiating the disciplinary proceedings.” 8. In the present case, charge-sheet is said to have been issued to the respondent on 14/06/2012 i.e. after the result was declared on 04/04/2012 and he was inflicted with the penalty of censure and as per the DOP&T Circular dated 19/05/1984 7 “the punishments of censure, recovery pecuniary loss and stopping of increment do not constitute a bar to promotion of an official provided, on the basis of overall assessment of his record of service, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommends his promotion to the next higher grade”. As such, since charge-sheet was issued to the respondent much after his appearance in the examination and declaration of result, in our considered opinion, learned Tribunal is absolutely justified in allowing the application filed by the respondent herein and directing the petitioners herein to declare the result of the respondent and give consequential relief to him if he is found eligible with prospective effect. We do not find any merit in this writ petition warranting interference in the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- /- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Harneet