Brijesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel holding brief of P.P. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand-respondent Nos.1,2 & 4 and Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 14.08.2015, whereby the petitioner was declared unfit for promotion to the next higher post of Superintending Engineer, and in recommending the name of the third respondent, who is junior to him, for promotion; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos.1 & 2 to first decide the pending representations submitted by the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 and, consequently, hold a departmental promotion committee afresh considering the claim of the petitioner, as well as constitute a review DPC accordingly.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Engineer pursuant to the selection process undertaken by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, and was thereafter promoted as an Executive Engineer on 04.01.2006. He continues in the said post till date.

On 08.05.2009, the Departmental Secretary held the Junior Engineer, the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer (petitioner) liable for a loss of Rs.65,257/- with respect to the irrigation project, Jasowala. The petitioner was imposed a penalty of Rs.9,874.05, and an adverse entry was entered in his character roll in the Financial Year 2009-10. Questioning the said order of punishment, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal. While matters stood thus, the petitioner filed WPSB No.252 of 2015 before this Court, and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 08.07.2015 directing the DPC to take a decision in the matter as per law. The Public Services Tribunal was also directed to decide the pending case within a period of one month.

The Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal allowed claim petition No.66/DB/2014 by order dated 06.03.2017. The punishment order dated 30.11.2011, and the order dated 22.07.2016, were set aside, leaving it open to the competent authority to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 25.05.2017.

Pursuant to the charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 25.05.2017, a departmental enquiry was held, and is said to have been completed. However, no final order has been passed, by the disciplinary authority, till date. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, by way of the present writ petition, contending that, even as on date, there is still one post of Superintending Engineer vacant; and since there is no adverse entry against the petitioner as on date, a review DPC should be directed to be constituted, and the petitioner's claim for promotion be directed to be considered.

On the other hand Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, would submit that though the disciplinary enquiry, held against the petitioner, had concluded in April, 2019, no orders have been passed by the disciplinary authority till date; and the petitioner is seeking to take advantage of the failure of the disciplinary authority to complete disciplinary proceedings and to pass final orders, by seeking a review DPC to be constituted, for his promotion, in the interregnum.

As a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner pursuant to which a disciplinary enquiry was held, it would be wholly inappropriate for us to direct the respondents to consider his claim for promotion pending orders being passed in the disciplinary enquiry initiated against him.

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, would then submit that, since the delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings has resulted in the petitioner being denied promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, the respondents be directed to complete disciplinary proceedings at the earliest; and, in case the petitioner is absolved in the disciplinary enquiry, to thereafter consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer by constituting a review DPC.

Both Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the third respondent, have no objection for such an order to be passed.

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to dispose of the writ petition directing the disciplinary authority to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, and pass final orders in accordance with law with utmost expedition, and in any event within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Needless to state that, in case the petitioner is absolved in the disciplinary proceedings and no punishment is imposed upon him, the respondents shall then consider constituting a DPC to consider the petitioner's candidature, along with other eligible candidates, for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.