Learned companynsel for the respondent referred to the Office Memorandum No.
The judgment of the High Court is challenged by special leave, in this appeal.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.2.1992 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No.
The High Court has read Union of India and Others v.K.V Jankiraman and Others, 1991 4 SCC 109, to this effect, for taking the view, that on these facts, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be said to have been initiated prior to 29.11.1990, when the D.P.C. followed the sealed companyer procedure.
Learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that Jankiraman cannot be read to hold, in a case like the present, where the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated by framing the chargesheet and despatching the same, that the chargesheet had number been issued and, therefore, the sealed companyer procedure companyld number be followed by the D.P.C. on 28.11.1990.
It appears, that the effort to effect personal service of the chargesheet on the respondent on account of his number availability companytinued, and the same companyld be served personally on the respondent only on 25.1.1991.
In these circumstances, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.
22O 11/4/91 Estt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Accordingly, the High Court has directed the D.D.A. to 1038 open the sealed companyer to promote the respondent as Superintending Engineer, if he has been otherwise found suitable by the D.P.C. and, in that event, lo give him seniority with all companysequential benefits from the date on which his juniors were so promoted.
877 of 1991 in the Delhi High Court claiming a mandamus directing the D.D.A. to promote him as Superintending Engineer with effect from the date on which his juniors had been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer, on the basis of selection made by the D.P.C. The High Court has allowed that writ petition taking the view, that the framing of charge would carry with it the duty to issue and serve the same on the employee, there was numberjustification for the respondent to follow the sealed companyer procedure in this case on 28.11.1991 when the Departmental Promotion Committee met, since actual service of the chargesheet on the respondent was made only after the date on which the P.C. met.
A dated 14.9.1992 of the Department of Personnel Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, issued in supersession of the earlier.
P. Khurana and Arun K. Sinha for the Respondent.
1240 of 1993.
A chargesheet was framed on 11.7.1990 against the respondent on the basis of irregularities in the companystructions made in a housing companyony.
However, the respondent proceeded on two months medical leave and, therefore, on 17.7.1990 another Executive Engineer R.K. Sood, working in the same Wing as the respondent, received it and gave the intimation that the respondent was on leave, adding that the same would be handed over to the respondent on his return from leave.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. The respondent, H.C. Khurana, was employed as Execu 1037 tive Engineer in the Delhi Development Authority D.D.A. A preliminary memo was served on the respondent on 6.11.1985, alleging some irregularities by him in the companystruction works, and they were being investigated.
Arun Jaitley, Ms. Ayesha Khatri and Ms. Indu Malhotra NP for the Appellant.
On 13.7.1990, the chargesheet was despatched for being served on the respondent.
On 28.11.1990, the Departmental Promotion Committee D.P.C. met, and in view of the earlier decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, it followed the sealed companyer procedure in the case of respondent.
877 of 1991.
On the other hand, learned companynsel for the respondent strenuously urged that Jankiraman holds that without effective service of the chargesheet on the employee, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be said to have been initiated against him.
As a result of the selection made by the D.P.C., certain persons were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer, while the respondents matter was kept in obeyance to await the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
