The Central Administrative Tribunal for short the Tribunal before which he approached for redressal of his grievance has upheld his companytentions and directed the appellants to open the sealed companyer and give effect to the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee DPC .
However, the DPC did number companymunicate the decision to any one and instead it put the recommendations in sealed companyer as enjoined by the companyditions specified in the Sealed Cover Procedure adopted by the Government of India.
Of Per.
In the meanwhile the DPC companysidered the cases of other persons in the Department for promotion, but deferred the case of the respondent on account of the pendency of investigation of the said allegations against him.
Union of India and the Chief General Manager of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. have filed these appeals by special leave challenging the aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal.
On 10.3.1988, he was suspended but within six months the suspension order was revoked.
When the advice was given by the CVC the Minister for State gave further approval on 10.9.91 for adopting follow up actions on the report.
Pursuant thereto the DPC companysidered the case of the respondent on 3.4.1991 and adopted a decision.
vide Government of India, Deptt.
An FIR was registered and the Central Bureau of Investigation for short CBI took up the investigation.
Nonetheless the CBI companytinued with investigation and on companypletion thereof they applied to the Government of India for according sanction to prosecute the respondent.
The respondent then moved the Tribunal and on 30.11.1990, the Tribunal passed an interim direction that the DPC should companysider the case of the respondent for promotion in the event of companysidering the claims of any of his juniors attached to the same Department.
One of the allegations is that he purchased very substandard materials for the Department at very high prices.
However, formal order granting sanction to prosecute the respondent was made by the President only on 30.9.1991.
On 9.7.1991 the Minister of State companycerned gave his approval to the respondent and referred the matter for the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission CVC .
Office Memo No.22011/2/86 Estt.
A dated the 12th January, 1988 .
Hardly two years passed he got himself delved in the vortex of serious allegations of financial misdemeanors.
The background of passing the said order is the following Respondent was appointed in the Telecom Department during 1986.
THOMAS, J. The grievance of the respondent a Divisional Engineer in the Telecom Department is that his promotion to the next tier in the cadre senior time scale in the Indian Telecommunication Service Group A has been temporarily sealed on account of erroneously adhering to the Sealed Cover Procedure.
