They were reinstated in service in November, 1983.
He passed his Departmental examination for the post of Lower Division Clerk against 10 vacancies and by letter of October 14, 1981, he was informed about his selection for the said post against the said vacancies reserved for educationally quali fied Group D staff.
Civil Appeals Nos.
3018/87 and 3021187 arise out of the judgments dated April 24, 1987 and April 1, 1987 respective ly of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.
Civil Appeals Nos.
By yet another order of July 29, 1985, his pay was fixed by giving him increment from September 25, 1981 but he was denied arrears of pay from that date till June 2, 1985.
The Tribunal has observed that although when the DPC met in June 1988, the employee was already served with a charge sheet on February 22, 1988 and, therefore, the sealed companyer procedure companyld number be faulted, since admittedly his juniors were given promotion with retrospective effect from July 30, 1986,.
3083/90 and 4379/90 arise out of the judgments dated March, 2, 1989 and September 15, 1989 of the Madras and Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal respectively and which are based on the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has, therefor rightly directed the authorities tO open the sealed companyer.
L.P. Civil No.
To his representation a reply was sent that since he had number worked as LDC during the said period he was number entitled to the arrears of salary.
The employee did number challenge the said order denying him ar rears of pay till he made his representation on February 18, 1988.
L.P. Civil No.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 24.4.87, 2.3.87, 1.4.87 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Original Applica tion No.
On June 3, 1988, the DPC met for companysidering the promo tionto the Selection Grade.
30 18 21 of 1987.
The second fault which the Tribunal has found is that since the penalty of stoppage of increment was imposed at the end of the disciplinary proceedings, it was number open for the authorities to deny the respondent his promotion to the.
Thereafter, a DPC was again companystitut ed in March 1986 which, after companysideration of the employ ees case, recommended him for promotion w.e.f.
140of 1986.
Admittedly, the DPC met in June 1988 when the employee was already served with the charge sheet on February 22, 1988.
the DPC should number have excluded the re spondents name from companysideration when it met on June 3, 1988.
The respondent employee in this case was a Sepoy in the Department of Central Excise and Customs.
The Departmental Promotion Committee met in July 1986 to companysider the cases of the employees for promotion but re sorted to sealed companyer procedure in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against them.
51 55 of 1990 These appeals are filed against five respondent employees.
However, while doing so, the Tribunal has also directed arrears of salary to be paid for intervening period along with all companysequential benefits.
1094 of 1990 Special leavegranted.
2, The companymon questions involved in all these matters relate to what in service jurisprudence has companye to be known as sealed companyer procedure.
Admittedly further, the employee was punished by an order of August 19, 1988 and his one increment was withheld.
prosecutions against them were dropped by the Administration by an order of January 14, 1985.
Civil Appeals Nos.
We are, however, unable to understand the direction of the Tribunal to companyvene a Review DPC for companysidering the employees case as on February 1 1988.
Special Leave Petition C No.
The Tribunal has found fault With the authorities on two grounds.
The Union of India and the other appellant authori ties have by these appeals challenged the findings recorded by the different Benches of the Tribunal in reply to one or the other of or all the aforesaid three questions, in the decisions impugned therein.
Civil Appeal No.
51 55 of 1990 arise out of the deci sion dated July 12, 1989 of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench.
However, the result was kept in a sealed companyer in view of the pending disciplinary proceedings against him.
junior to him were promoted by an order dated April 16, 1990.
In case an official is found unfit for promo tion on the basis of his record, without taking into companysideration, the case s pending against him, the findings of the D.P.C. shall be recorded in the proceedings.
By the impugned decision, the Tribunal has directed the authorities to grant to the respondent employee his pay and allowances from September 25, 1981 to June 2, 1985.
The charge sheet was for misconduct for the period between 1982 and 1985.
11680 of 1991 arises out of the decision dated January 25, 1991 given by the Tribu nal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
On the employee till the date the DPC met on February 1, 1988 it was issued only in March 2, 1989.
By a subsequent order of July 3, 1985, the earlier order of June 6, 1985 was made effective from September 25, 1981.
However, since some departmental proceedings were pending against him, he was number given the ,said promotion.
Dis ciplinary proceedings as well as criminal prosecution were launched against each of them for lodging false Leave Travel Concession claims and for using forged documents to support them.
Till the date of the impugned order of the Tribunal, i.e., January 1, 1991, numbercharge sheet was served upon the re spondent employee.
1094, 2344/90, 11680 of 1991.
on a numberional basis.
this was obviously companytrary even to the instructions companytained in the Memorandum.
1094 of 1990 arises out of the decision dated June 29, 1989 of the Tribunal Bombay Bench.
the finding of the Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Keeping in view the deposit of the amount voluntarily in October 1983, a lenient view was taken and the criminal.
Admittedly, numbercharge memo was served.
July 26, 1986.
He was entitled to promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted in or after August 1982 if he was in August 1982 found fit for promotion by the DPC, The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly directed the appellant to open the sealed companyer and if the DPC in 1982 had found him fit for promo tion, to give him the promotion from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted.
The authority will, of companyrse give reasons for denial of the whole or part of the arrears of salary The appeal is, there fore, allowed partly with numberorder as to companyts.
Civil Appeals Nos.
SpeCial Leave Petition C No.
3083 4379 of 1990 and S.L.P. C Nos.
While recording its findings, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has also struck down two provisions of the Central Government Memorandum of 30th January, 1982 on the subject.
In respect of any other kind of assessment, the grading awarded by the D.P.C. may be kept in a sealed companyer.
According to the employee, on October 11, 1985 the disciplinary proceedings ended in companyplete exoneration.
The employees were suspended from service on 15th July , 1983.
However, this was done without prejudice to the departmental proceedings which were subsequently initiated and the formal chargesheet was issued to the employees on December 24, 1987.
In the Departmental Inquiry, .he, was exonerated of all the charges and by an order.of June 6, 1985 he was appointed to officiate as Lower Division Clerk.
Special Leave Petition C No.
By an order of August 19, 1988 a penalty of withholding of increment for one year was imposed on the respondent as a result of the said disciplinary proceedings.
3019/87, 3020/87 and 3016/88 arise out of the judgment dated March 2, 1987 deliv ered by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribu nal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
Altar Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, V.C. Mahajan, D. Jain, C.V.S. Rao, Hemant Sharma, B. Parthasarthy, A. Subba Rao, N. Krishnamani, Pravir Choudhary, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Shirin Jain, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal and Ms. Manjula Gupta for the appearing parties.
Hence, disciplinary proceedings were companymenced in February 1988 and the respondent was served with a charge sheet on February 22, 1988.
3016/88 51 55/90 with CA Nos.
4379 of 1990 In this case, the respondent employee was number recommend ed for promotion by the DPC in its meeting held on February 1, 1988 Instead, the DPC had kept the results in a sealed companyer because of the pending dis.ciplinary proceed ings.
When earlier he was working as Garrison Engineer in Bikaner Division, there was a fire in the Stores in April 1984 and there were also deficiencies in the Stores held by the Store keeper during the period between 1982 and 1985.
2344 of 1990 arises out of the decision dated 18th September, 1989 given by the Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
121/86, T.A. Nos.
We, therefore, allow these appeals as above with numberorder as to companyts.
958 180 of 1986 and O.A. No.
2344 of 1990 Special leave granted.
his appointment order as L.D.C. would be issued if he was exon erated from the disciplinary proceedings which were then pending against him.
The peculiar facts in this case are that at the relevant time the respondent employee was working as Superintending Engineer since July 1986.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. Civil Appeals Nos.
However, he was informed that.
Concisely stated, the questions are 1 what is the date from which it can be said that disciplinary criminal proceedings are pending against an employee?
Pursuant to this meeting, by an order of July 28, 1988 some juniors were given the Selection Grade with retrospective effect from July 30, 1986.
They admitted guilt and pleaded revocation of their suspension on depositing the amount of Rs.
The respondent employees name was kept in a sealed companyer and was, therefore, number included in the list of the promotee officers.
WITH CA Nos.
The appeal is therefore, allowed partly as above with numberorder as to companyts.
If the DPC had companysidered the case of the employee on February 1, 1988 and withheld the result because of the pending disciplinary proceedings, the proper direction would have been to ask the appellant authority to open the sealed companyer and if the employee was found fit for promotion, to direct the authority to promote him from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted as a result of the recommendation of the DPC on February 1, 1988.
