Justice M.A. Khan: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in detail, we did not find any merit in the OA and had dismissed it. We are now recording the reasons.
2. The applicant has filed this OA for a direction to the respondents to promote him from the post of Senior Accounts Officer (SAO) to the next higher post of Junior Time Scale (JTS) of IDAS at par with his juniors, with all consequential benefits.
3. The applicant joined the respondents as an LDC in 1966. In due course, he was promoted to the post of SAO. On 30.5.1994, the CBI, Lucknow registered a report against S/Shri M.C. Gupta, a UDC of MES (GE) A.F. Bareilly and Mahabir under Sections 120-B/420/468/471 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act with an allegation that the accused under a conspiracy replaced cheque slips and got cheques amount credited to their account. The applicant was implicated in the said case subsequently. His grievance is that while his junior has been given promotion to the grade of JTS of IDAS w.e.f. 30.11.2003, the recommendations of the DPC about him have been kept in sealed cover pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings against him. He has challenged his non-promotion on the ground that it was illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
4. Contesting the OA, the respondents, in their counter reply, have pleaded that the recommendations of the DPC in respect of the applicant for his promotion to the post of JTS have been placed in sealed cover, which cannot be opened till such time the criminal proceedings instituted by the CBI against the applicant come to a conclusion. It is stated that the sanction for his prosecution has already been granted by the Department on 18.8.1999. Therefore, as per DoP&T OM dated 14.9.1992, there was no possibility of his promotion during the pendency of the criminal proceedings.
5. In the rejoinder, the applicant has reiterated his own case.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.
7. The applicant is standing trial in a criminal case. He was due for promotion to the post of JTS of IDAS. He had been considered for promotion by a duly constituted DPC along with his juniors but the recommendations have been kept in sealed cover. The respondents have informed the applicant that till the disciplinary proceedings pending against him are over, the recommendations of the DPC, which are kept in sealed cover, could not be opened and given effect to. Learned counsel for applicant has conceded that two earlier promotions of the applicant from the post of Accounts Officer, which was w.e.f. 14.11.1994 and to the next post of SAO, which was w.e.f. 30.1.1998, were made before the sanction was granted by the authorities for his prosecution in the charge sheet filed by the CBI. Therefore, the grant of the earlier promotion would not advance the argument of the learned counsel.
8. As regards the contention that in the order dated 15.1.2004 (Annexure A-I), the SAO (AN) has informed the applicant that the recommendations of the DPC have been kept in sealed cover pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings, in our considered view, would also not advance his case since admittedly only criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant and there may be some mistake in the letter dated 15.1.2004.
9. The sealed cover procedure has been adopted in accordance with rules. Applicant s only right was for consideration for promotion by a duly constituted DPC when his juniors were considered for such promotion. That consideration has been duly given to him by the DPC and recommendations have been put in the sealed cover.
10. We do not find that the procedure adopted by the respondents suffers from any infirmity or there is any procedural irregularity. The OA is, therefore, has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed leaving parties to bear their own costs. ( M. K. Misra ) ( M. A. Khan ) Member (A) Vice Chairman (J) /sunil/