Central Administrative Tribunal - DelhiSunil Dutt vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 6 December, 2018Central Administrative Tribunal
                      Principal Bench

                     OA No.2259/2012

        New Delhi, this the 06th day of December, 2018

     Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
         Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)

Sunil Dutt, S/o Shri Shakember Dutt,
aged about 41 years,
Resident of L-1/263-A, DDA Flats,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.

(working as Inspector in the Office of CBI, Anti-Corruption
Branch, Plot No. 5-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
- 110003)
                                               ... Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Ms. Mridula Ray
Bhardwaj with Vedant Bhardwaj and Ms. Rinchen Wangma)

                            Versus

1.     Union of India,
       through the Secretary to Govt of India,
       Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
       and Pensions, Department of Personnel
       and Training, North Block,
       New Delhi - 110001.

2.     Director, Central Bureau of Investigation,
       Govt. of India, 5-B, CGO Complex,
       Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.

3.     Dy. Director of Administration, CBI,
       5-B, 7th Floor, A & B Wing, CGO Complex,
       Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.

4.     N. V. N. Krishnan (82)
       ACB Delhi, 5-B, 1st Floor, CGO Complex,
       Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

5.     Mahesh Chand Kashyap (146)
       CBI/SU, 10/6, Jam Nagar,
       House Akbar Road, New Delhi.
                             2
                                              OA No. 2259/2012


6.   Bhushan Bhardwaj (147)
     CBI: HO, 5-B, Ground Floor, CGO Complex,
     Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

7.   Bharat Singh (171)
     CBI/AC-II, 5-B, 8th Floor, A Wing CGO Complex,
     Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

8.   D. V. Tripathy (177)
     CBI/AC-II, 5-B, 8th Floor, A Wing CGO Comples,
     Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

9.   T. P. Anandhakrishnan (178)
     CBI/ACB, No. 36, Bellary Road,
     Ganga Nagar, Bengaluru - 560032.

10. E.P. Suresh Kumar (179)
    CBI/ACB, 36, Bellary Road,
    Ganga Nagar, Bengaluru - 560032.

11. Neeraj Aggarwal (180)
    CBI/AC-II, 5-B, 8th Floor, A Wing CGO Complex,
    Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

12. Ajay Kumar Bassi (181)
    CBI Academy, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Hapur Road,
    Ghaziabad - 201002, (UP)

13. S.L. Garg (182)
    CBI/AC-II, 5-B, 8th Floor, A Wing, CGO Comples,
    Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

14. Devraj V. (194)
    CBI, ACB, Cochin, Kathrikadavu, P.O. Kaloor, Kochi-
    682012 (Kerala).

15. Jagdish (195)
    CBI, ACB, Sector - 30 A, Chandigarh.

16. Sanjay Dubey (198)
    CBI, EO - II, 5-B, 4th Floor, B Wing CGO Complex,
    Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

17. Ram Gopal Mishra (199)
    CBI/AC-II, 5-B, 8th Floor, A Wing, CGO Complex,
    Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
                                    3
                                                         OA No. 2259/2012


18. Satya Pal Singh (205)
    CBI, EO-I, 5-B, 3rd Floor, A Wing, CGO Complex,
    Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

19. R. K. Jain (223)
    CBI: HO, 5-B, Ground Floor, CGO Complex,
    Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

20. M.O. Roy (224),
    Assistant Director (On deputation to SFIO)
    Serious Fraud Investigation Office,
    2nd Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan,
    CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.

21. S. C. Shukla, Dy SP CBI, AC-III
    CBI: HO, 5-B, 9th Floor, A Wing CGO Complex,
    Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

NOTE: Respondents Nos 4 to 21 to be served through
    Director, CBI, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

                                                       ...Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Padma Kumar S. for private
respondents and Mr. Rajeev Kumar for R-1 to R-3)

                         ORDER (ORAL)Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman:-This   OA     is   filed   challenging      the   order      dated

08.12.2011    passed       by    the     administration      of       CBI

withdrawing      the    proposed       revised   seniority     list    of

Inspectors as on 01.01.2010.             In addition to that, the

applicant prayed for directions to the respondents to grant

benefits of the order dated 25.01.2011 passed in OA

No.1021/2010. Other reliefs were also prayed.4OA No. 2259/20122.   The applicant was directly recruited as Sub Inspector

in the CBI, and over the period he was promoted as

Inspector.   In the context of seniority he found that the

Inspectors who are taken on deputation from other

departments were given the seniority from the date of

deputation, instead of the date of permanent absorption.

Accordingly, he filed OA No.1021/2010.        The Tribunal

disposed of the OA on 25.01.2011 directing that the

seniority of the officers taken on deputation shall be

reckoned only from the date of their permanent absorption

and from the date of initial deputation.   The proceedings

were issued purportedly to be implementing the judgment,

in OA No.1021/2010 and another OA.3.   Feeling that the same turns contrary to the directions

issued by the Tribunal in the said OA, the applicant filed

MA No.3488/2011. The Tribunal, however, took the view

that _______ has to be individual rights has been

undertaen in the OA and orally general principles were laid

down and in case the applicant is so advised, he has to

institute the separate proceedings. Accordingly dismissed

the MA through order dated 28.02.2012.4.   The applicant filed W.P. No.2783/2012, which was

dismissed on 11.05.2012.5OA No. 2259/20125.     The applicant contends that once there was clear

determination in OA No.1021/2010 to the effect that the

seniority of the Inspectors who are taken on deputation

must be reckoned from the date of permanent absorption

and not from the date of deputation. There was no basis

for the respondents to issue the impugned order.6.     The respondents filed the counter affidavit supporting

the impugned order.          According to them, there are

guidelines issued as regards the preparation of the

seniority list containing the officials who are directly

recruited in a department and those who are taken on

deputation and that the impugned order was issued strictly

in accordance with law. Various contentions advanced by

the applicant are refuted.7.     We heard Mr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Ms. Mridula Ray

Bhardwaj with Vedant Bhardwaj and Ms. Rinchen Wangma,

leaned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Padma Kumar S.

for private respondents and Mr. Rajeev Kumar for R-1 to

R-3.8.     The manner of fixation of seniority between the

Inspectors who are borne on the rolls of CBI from the very

inception on the one hand and those who are taken on

deputation from other departments has been the subject

matter of quite large number of proceedings. In fact,6OA No. 2259/2012diametrical opposite views were expressed in some of the

cases by this Tribunal.9.        In the recent past, a full bench dealt with the very

question in detail after the case was remanded by the

Delhi High Court. Four factors that have bearing on this

were taken into account, ultimately, it was held that the

judgment of the Tribunal in ___D. S. Dagar case does not

replicate good law




(Aradhana Johri)                 (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
  Member(A)                                  Chairman

/ankit/