S.Rajamani v. The Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.07.2007CORAMThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLAand The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANW.P.Nos.21170 of 2000 & 10978 of 2002andW.M.P.No.30801 of 2000S.Rajamani ... Petitioner in both the W.Psvs.1.The Union of India rep. by the Director General, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.2.The Chief General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Tamil Nadu Circle, Madras – 2.3.The Chief General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Maharashtra Circle, Bombay – 400 001.4.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai - 104. ... Respondents in both the W.PsW.P.No.21170 of 2000 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for therecords pertaining to the order in O.A.No.892 of 1998 dated 20.10.1998 ofthe fourth respondent and order No.TFC/ATP/S.Rajamani/28 dated 16.07.1998of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct therespondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Group B Officer witheffect from 1979 and thereafter as Grup A Officer from April, 1988 andconsequently pay all arrears of salary and other benefits due to suchpromotion. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.10978 of 2002 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for therecords pertaining to the order in O.A.No.893 of 1998 passed by the fourthrespondent and order bearing No.TFC/ATP/S.Rajamany/28 dated 16.07.1998passed by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently directrespondents 1 to 3 to pay all pay and allowances withheld by therespondents with effect from 1972 to 31.07.1988 with the interest at therate of 18% p.a. From the date on which it become due till the date of payand all other benefits as listed in para 9 of the affidavit.For petitioner ... Mr.R.RameshFor respondents ... Mr.K.KannanCOMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)Petitioner has come forward with these two writ petitions challengingthe orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20.10.1998 passedin O.A.Nos.892 and 893 of 1998. The brief facts which are required to bestated are that the petitioner, who entered service as a Telegraphist inJanuary, 1959 was promoted as Assistant Superintendent of TelegraphTraffic in the year 1972. He was issued with charge memo on 15.05.1976. On16.01.1979, he was imposed with the punishment of order of reversion fromthe post of Assistant Superintendent to Telegraphist. The petitioner'sappeal against the said order was also rejected by the appellate authorityon 17.05.1979. The petitioner preferred W.P.No.9808 of 1979 on 09.07.1979and an order of interim stay of reversion was also granted on the sameday. The interim order was also confirmed on 04.08.1979. On 04.09.1980,the petitioner was put back to his original post of AssistantSuperintendent. The writ petition was finally disposed of on 01.02.1983and the order of reversion was set aside, giving liberty to the contestingrespondents to initiate fresh enquiry, if deem fit. Subsequently on30.07.1987, the contesting respondents passed orders, dropping thedisciplinary action against the petitioner. On 01.08.1988, the petitionerwas given promotion to Group B and his seniority was revised with effectfrom April, 1982. The petitioner made a representation on 28.01.1985,claiming promotion to Group B with effect from 1979 and consequently,promotion to Group A with effect from April, 1988. He also filedO.A.No.206 of 1989 claiming the said relief. The said O.A. was disposed ofby the Tribunal on 02.03.1991 directing the petitioner to make a freshrepresentation to the respondents. A fresh representation was made by thepetitioner on 15.10.1993. Since it was not disposed of, the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed O.A.Nos.1377 of 1995 and 80 of 1996 and orders were passed on16.03.1998 directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner'srepresentation. On 16.07.1998, the petitioner's representation wasrejected. On 03.07.1998, the petitioner's claim for monetary benefits wasalso disposed of. As against the above orders, the petitioner preferredO.A.Nos.892 and 893 of 1998 respectively. O.A.No.892 of 1998 was disposedof by a separate order dated 20.10.1998 at the admission stage itself andin view of the orders passed in O.A.No.892 of 1998, the petitioner's claimin O.A.No.893 of 1998 was also rejected. It is as against the aboveorders, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petitions. 2.Assailing the orders of the Tribunal, Mr.Ramesh, learned counselfor the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner's claim forpromotion from the year 1979 having been rejected in the year 1987 andsuch rejection could have been solely on the ground of the pendingdisciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel contended that when once thesaid disciplinary proceedings which culminated in the order of reversionwas set aside by this Court in the order dated 01.02.1983 in W.P.No.2808of 1979, in the absence of any other impediment, the petitioner's claimfor promotion from the year 1979 ought to have been granted by thecontesting respondents. According to the learned counsel, as things stand,when the contesting respondents failed to follow the sealed coverprocedure in the matter of grant of promotion to the petitioner in therelevant years viz., in the year 1979 when his immediate juniorMr.L.Parasiram got promoted, in all fairness, when the Review DPC wasconstituted in the year 1987, there was no justifiable ground for thecontesting respondents to have declined promotion to the petitioner fromthe year 1979. According to the learned counsel, the grant of promotionfrom the year 1982 was not justified and therefore the order of theTribunal in not granting the relief as prayed for is also liable to beinterfered with and appropriate direction to be given for grantingpermission right from the year 1979. 3.As against the above submissions, Mr.K.Kannan, learned standingcounsel for the contesting respondents contended that the contestingrespondents did not have the opportunity to file reply before theTribunal, that in the counter affidavit filed in these writ petitions, ithas been specifically pointed out that the claim of the petitioner forpromotion from the year 1979 when his immediate junior got promoted wasrightly considered by the Review DPC and that such consideration was alsomade even in the year 1981 and since he was found not fit to be promotedin those years and he was found fit only in the year 1982, suchconsideration made by the Review DPC cannot be found fault with in orderto countenance the claim of the petitioner for the grant of promotionright from the year 1979. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.On a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the contestingrespondents, we find that in para 12, while dealing with the groundsraised by the petitioner the contesting respondents have specificallystated as under:"As mentioned in pre-paras the case for promotion to GroupB was taken up after the charges against the petitioner weredropped. As per the review DPC for 1979 and 1981 he was notconsidered fit for promotion. His promotion was recommended byreview DPC of 1982 and therefore fixation benefits are based on1982 DPC only. The petitioner did not bring out any new validground for considering his case for promotion to TTS Group Bfrom April, 1979. It is pertinent to mention that promotion toTTS Group B is by way of selection based on seniority andfitness of the candidates by a recommendatory body whoserecommendations have to be followed by the competent authority.After dropping the disciplinary proceedings, the case of theapplicant was duly referred by the D.O.T. to a review DPC inorder to restore the entitlement of promotion and seniority ofthe applicant. As stated earlier, the petitioner's case wasconsidered in review DPC 1979 and 1981 but he was notrecommended for promotion in both the cases."5.When we considered the rival submissions of the parties, we alsoperused the grounds raised by the petitioner in the O.A. before theTribunal. According to the petitioner, when all the disciplinaryproceedings initiated against him was dropped by the order dated30.07.1987, the respondents are bound to grant the benefit of promotionwith due seniority. When the said grievance expressed by the petitioner inthe O.A. is considered along with his grievance that his immediate juniorgot promoted in the year 1979, we find that the least the petitioner canexpect is that his claim for promotion was bound to be considered rightfrom the year 1979. We also find that the petitioner's claim for promotionfrom the year 1979 has been duly considered by the Review DPC. 6.A perusal of the stand of the contesting respondents as stated inthe counter affidavit disclose that in the Review DPC for 1979 and 1981,the petitioner was found not fit for promotion. While according to thelearned counsel for the petitioner, such rejection of the petitioner'sclaim was solely on the ground that he was inflicted with the punishmentof reversion in the year 1979, according to the contesting respondents, ifreally that ground weighed with the respondents, there was no necessityfor considering his claim in the Review DPC for 1979 and 1981. On a closescrutiny of the respective stand, we find that the stand of the contestingrespondents merits acceptance. As rightly contended by the learned counselfor the respondents if really the disciplinary proceedings of the year1979 should stand in the way of considering the case of the petitioner forpromotion in the year 1979, there was no need for the respondents to haveconsidered the claim of the petitioner for the year 1979 and 1981. Thevery fact that the respondents decided to consider the claim of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner for promotion from the year 1979 itself disclose that theimpediment viz., the prevalence of the disciplinary proceedings in theyear 1979 having been removed, the case of the petitioner for promotionwas taken up for consideration right from the year 1979. In fact, hisclaim for promotion both in the years 1979 and 1981 was found to be notfeasible as he was otherwise found not fit for promotion in those years.Therefore, it will have to be held that prevalence of disciplinaryproceedings apart, as the petitioner did not come up to the standard forthe grant of promotion in the year 1979, he was found not eligible forgrant of promotion both in the year 1979 as well as in the year 1981 andsince the Review DPC found him fit for promotion only from the year 1982,he was duly granted such promotion, granting the due seniority from theyear 1982. Such promotion was accorded to him in the year 1988. If reallythe disciplinary proceedings was the sole ground for the non- grant of thepromotion in the year 1979, when the order of punishment was set aside bythis Court on 01.02.1983, there was no reason for the Review DPC to havegranted promotion to the petitioner from the year 1982 itself. Therefore,we are convinced that the prevalence of the disciplinary proceedings orthe order of punishment in the year 1979 was not the reason for the non-grant of promotion from the year 1979 onwards. Therefore, we accept thestand of the respondents that the non-grant of promotion in the year 1979was on the ground that the petitioner was otherwise found not fit forpromotion from the year 1979 as well as in the year 1981. Therefore, wedo not find any good grounds to doubt the conclusion of the Review DPC forhaving granted the promotion only from the year 1982 when the petitionerwas found fit for grant of such promotion. 7.The order of the Tribunal in having confirmed the action of thecontesting respondents as regards the grant of promotion from the year1982, therefore does not suffer from any infirmity either on the ground oflegality or on any other grounds. When once the action of the respondentsin having granted the promotion as from the year 1982 as confirmed by theTribunal does not call for any interference, the order for the monetaryrelief as concluded by the Tribunal in its order dated 20.10.1998 inO.A.No.893 of 1998 also does not call for any interference. We thereforedo not find any merit in both these writ petitions. The writ petitionstherefore fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently,connected W.M.P. is dismissed.mmiSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Director General, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi.2.The Chief General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Tamil Nadu Circle, Madras – 2.3.The Chief General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Maharashtra Circle, Bombay – 400 001.4.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai - 104.+1 cc to Mr.R.Raemsh, Advocate Sr.No.45441.+1 cc to Mr.K.Kannan, Advocate Sr.No.45275.AKR(CO)dcp/6.8W.P.Nos.21170 of 2000 & 10978 of 2002