PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. (SMT.) SUDHA SALHAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/01/1998
BENCH:
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998 Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.Saghir Ahmad
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pattanaik Harish Chandra, Adv., (C.V.Subba Rao) Adv. (NP) for the appellants Surya Kant, Adv. for the Respondent
ORDER
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
SAGHIR AHMAD.J.
Respondent was appointed to the post of Obstetrician and Gynaecologist on 30th July, 1979. She was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Specialist Gr. II, (Senior Scale) in non-teaching Specialist Sub-Cadre on 8th of March 1989, but he proceedings of the Selection Committee were placed in the sealed cover. On 16th of April 1991, respondent was placed under suspension which was followed by a charge sheet issued to her on 8th of My 1991.
On 18th of April 1991, the respondent filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, praying for the following reliefs:
"(a) to direct the respondents
open the sealed cover pertaining to
the promotion of the applicant to
Specialist Grade-II (Senior scale
officers in non-teaching specialist
sub-cadre in pursuance of the
recommendations of the Departmental
Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) which
met on 8.3.1989;
(b) to direct the respondents that
the applicant be promoted
retrospectively from the date of
her immediate junior has been
promoted and to pay arrears of
salary and allowances, if the DPC
had recommended in her favour;
(c) to direct the respondents to
give her all consequential benefits
like seniority, fixation of pay
etc;
The Tribunal by its impugned
judgment allowed the Original
Application and directed as under:
"In the result, therefore, we allow
the O.A and direct the respondents
to open the sealed cover pertaining
to promotion of the applicant to
specialist Grade-II (Senior Scale
officers in non-teaching specialist
sub-cadre) in pursuance of the
recommendations of the DPC which
met on 8.3.1989. Further in case
the recommendation of the DPC is in
her favour, we direct, the
respondents that the appellant be
promoted retrospectively from the
date of her immediate junior had
been promoted and pay the salary
and allowances to her. We further
direct that she is entitled to
consequential benefits, like
seniority and fixation of pay. This
may be done within a period of two
months from the dated of receipt of
a copy of this order".
The Union of India is in appeal before us.
The Tribunal has found it as a fact that on the date on which the Departmental Promotion Committee met to assess the case of the petitioner, she was neither under suspension nor was nay charge sheet issued to her. The Tribunal, consequently, replying upon its own Full Bench decision as also a decision of this Court in New Ban of India vs. N.P.Seghal & Anr. (JT. 1991(1) SC 498) allowed the Original Application and issued the direction s noted above.
The question, however, stands concluded by a Three Judge decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. K.B.Jankiraman & Ors. (1991 (4) SCC 109 in which the same view has been taken. We are in respectful agreement with the above decision. We are also of the opinion that if on the date on which the name of a person is considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the higher post, such person is neither under suspension nor has any departmental proceedings been initiated against him, his name, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the select list and the "sealed cover" procedure cannot be adopted. The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can be placed in a "sealed cover’ only if on the date of consideration of the name for promotion, the departmental proceedings had been initiated or were pending or onm its conclusion, final orders had not been passed by the appropriate authority. It is obvious that if the officers, against whom the departmental proceedings were initiated, is ultimately exonerated, the sealed cover containing the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee would b e opened, and the recommendation would be given effect to.
The appeal, therefore, has no merits and is dismissed without any order as to costs.