Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

76
Union Public Service Commission
the pending case, recommendations of the UPSC would be acted upon and in case he is found fit, he
would be granted promotion w.e.f. the same date when his immediate junior was promoted. They
have thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed with costs.
5. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings as well as the original record.
6. It was strenuously argued by the counsel for the applicant that MCD is not following any rules
as a result of which people are being harassed unnecessarily, being denied their due promotions which
they would have earned had the DPC been in time, therefore, some directions need to be given to the
respondents to streamline their department and not to deny promotions to the eligible candidates in
view of the delay which is totally attributable to the department. Counsel for the applicant also submitted
that in the Minutes of the DPC for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, names of Shri
R.K.Allahawadi and Shri B.R.Bansal are kept in the sealed cover yet they have been given promotions
subsequently, which shows that respondents are resorting to pick and choose method and denying the
same benefit to the applicant such arbitrary action need to be stopped at any cost.
7. Since perusal of the minutes of the DPC produced by the counsel for the respondents showed
that the names of Shri Allahawadi and Shri B.R.Bansal were indeed kept in the sealed cover, yet by the
subsequent order they were promoted, we had directed the respondents to produce the records to show
how these two persons were given promotions in spite of their names having been kept in the sealed
cover while denying the same benefit to the applicant. Respondents have since produced the records.
Perusal of the records show that on the date when the DPC was convened, names of both these officers
were kept in the sealed cover because they were either under the currency of punishment or were facing
departmental cases but subsequently the currency of punishment was over, therefore, their sealed covers
were opened and since they were found fit by the DPC, they were give promotions. As far as applicant
is concerned, he was also duly considered by the DPC convened by the respondents but as there was a
police case pending against him in which charge sheet was already filed in the court of law on 9.12.2005
which case was still pending, therefore, his name was rightly kept in the sealed cover. Since it is an
admitted position that charge sheet has already been filed in the court of law against the applicant, no
direction can be given to open the sealed cover. Instructions on the point are clear that if on the day when
DPC meets there is a charge sheet pending against an officer, his name has to be kept in the sealed cover
and it can be opened only if he is ultimately fully exonerated in the police case or disciplinary case. In the
instant case, it has not been stated by the applicant that his case has been decided finally, therefore, no
direction can be given to the respondents to open the applicant’s sealed cover.