The aforesaid civil appeal and the writ petitions were heard together.
His grievance was that procedure has numbersanction under the rules framed under Article 148 5 of the Constitution.
The petitioner has number preferred any appeal before this Court against the judgment of the Division Bench so far as it goes against him as to the applicability of the CCS C Rules, 1964.
The Division Bench accordingly directed that the promotion of the petitioner has to be companysidered without reference to the sealed companyer procedure.
In the writ appeal, the Division Bench while upholding the applicability of the CCS C Rules, 1964 however, did number approve of the sealed companyer procedure.
They are applied to fix the seniority of the personnel in the Subordinate Accounts Service cadre.
The petitioner filed writ petition No.
As already stated, the petitioner has number preferred appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
4835 of 1983 in the Madras High Court challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the applicability of the CCS C Rules, 1964, The stand taken by him was that the said rules have number been framed in accordance with Article 148 5 of the Constitution and, therefore, the entire disciplinary proceedings should be taken to be vitiated.
The petitioner also filed another writ petition No.
The Departmental Promotion Committee which companysidered the cases of all eligible, candidates recommended promotion of juniors.
During the pendency of the proceedings, his case for promotion came to be companysidered along with that of his juniors.
The petitioner has filed the top numbered writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.
12361 of 1985, he seeks an order quashing the departmental instruction issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on July 27, 1956 amending para 143 of his Manual of Standing Orders.
The department took disciplinary proceedings against him.
The Division Bench said that the procedure is based only on the executive instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Home Affairs and it has number been provided by the rules framed under Article 148 5 of the Constitution.
the learned single Judge of the High Court Dismissed both the writ petitions.
The Accountant General and the Union of India have preferred the appeal No.
The Committee kept its findings on the suitability of the petitioner in a sealed envelope to be opened only on the termination of the disciplinary proceedings.
4950 of 1985 challenging the validity of the judgment giving relief to the petitioner ignoring the sealed companyer procedure.
Jagannatha Shetty, J. S. Ranganatban, the companymon petitioner has preferred these two writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.
He was a Section Officer in the office of the Accountant General, Madras.
