WP/18594/2021 of Union of India Vs P. Rajasekhar on 30 December 2021

1. Union of lndia, Rep by its Ex Officio Principal Secetary, IVlinistry of Railways RailBhavan Raisina Road New Delhi 1 10001 .Bhavan Raisina Road New Delhi 1 10001 .

2. The Director (Estt) And (GP), Railway Board, lvlinistry of Railways, Rail Bhavan,Raisina Road, New Delhi - IRaisina Road, New Delhi - I

3. The General l\,4anager, South Central Railway, Head Quaders Office 3rd Floor,Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.

4. The General l\,4anager (P), Head Quarters Office, 4th Floor, Rail NilayamSecunderabadSecunderabad

...PETITIONERS

AND

1. P. Rajasekhar, S/o. Late P. Suguna Rao, Aged about 55 Years, Occ- DivisionalSignal and Telecom Engineer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam 7th Floor,Secunderabad R/o. Railway Quarters No. 955/4, South Lallaguda, tvlettugudaSecunderabad.Signal and Telecom Engineer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam 7th Floor,Secunderabad R/o. Railway Quarters No. 955/4, South Lallaguda, tvlettugudaSecunderabad.

Respondent/l"tApplicant in OA No 112812018

2, M. Nagaiah, S/o, Not Known, Occ- Divisional Signal and Telecom Engineer( Projects ), O/o. Deputy Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer ( Projects )Microwave Centre, Sough Central Railway, Secunderabad - 500025( Projects ), O/o. Deputy Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer ( Projects )Microwave Centre, Sough Central Railway, Secunderabad - 500025

...RESPONDENT/Sth Respondent in OA No'1 1 281201 8

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleasedtoto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more [particularly ]one in the natureof WRIT OF CERTIORARI, or any other appropriate Writ order or direction callingfor the records pertaining to order dated 09/1 1/2020 passed in OA No.02110112812018 and lr/A No. 883/2019 on the file of Central Administrative TribunalHyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same, as illegal arbitrary andunconstitutional and to pass lA NO: 3 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be [pleased ]to directthe Respondent to reserve one JAG post for granting promotion and for regularposting to the petitioner. pending disposal of the main Writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section ['l ]51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated [in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ]tosuspend the operation of the orders dated 0911112020 [passed ]in OANo.021/01 12812018 And N.4A no. 883/2019 on the file of Central Administrative TribunalHyderabadBench,HyderabadpendingdisposaloftheaboveWritPetitionand pass IA NO:2 OF 2021

PetitionunderSectionlslCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit [filed ][ln support of ][the ][petition, ][the ][High Court may be pleased ][to ][vacate]ir," int"rirn order dt [11lOBl2O21 ][passed ][in ][WP No ][18594 ][of ][2021]

Counsel for the [Petitioners:SRl. ][CH'V' KANAKA DURGA' ADV ][REP]

SRI PUSHPINDER [KAUR]

Counsel for the [Respondent ][No ][1: ][SRI ][AKKAM ][ESHWAR]

Counsel forthe [Respondent ][No ][2: None Appeared]

The Court made [the ][following: ][ORDER]

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAOHON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

W.P. No, 18594 of 2O2l

ORDER: (eer Hon,ble Sri Justice p Naveen Rao)

Heard Ms Ch.V. I(anaka Durga, learned counsel representingMs Pushpinder Kaur,learned counsel for petitioner andSri Akkam Eshwar learned counsel for first respondent.

2. This rvrit petition is filed seeking following relief:

*... of WRIT OF .......ro CURTIORARI. issue an appropriate or any other appropriare writ order or direction Writ order'0, more particularly Oi.."ti6, on€ in .ufffi the naturefor'il.records pertaining to order dared og/lt/2020 ['passed ]in oA No 021/01t28/2018 and"MA No883/2019 on the file ofCentral Administrative iriUrnrt Uyae.uOaa Bench Hyd"ra;; ;r;-;;;htlre same as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional unA to parr......,,

3. The first respondent joined service as TelecommunicationInspector Grade III on 5.4.19g3. on 2.12.19gg notification was issuedfor the post of Assistant Signal and Telecommunication Engineer_Grade-B cadre. On 16.3.2016 the Railway Board issued notificationappointing certain Grade-B officers of signal and relecommunicationDepartment to Grade-A /Junior scale of Indian Ra ways circle of IRSSEfor the vacancy year 2o14-ls. F'irst respondent was considered for thepanel year 2Ol4-lS but was not recommended by the DepartmentalPromotion committee on the ground that he was involved in criminarcase registere d on 26.8.20 1 1 and was placed under suspension on5.12.2O14. Therefore, promotion of first respondent was deferred.

4. Contending that he was illegally denied promotion whilegranting promorron to his juniors even though no disciprinary /criminalproceedings were pending against him, first respondent filed O.A. No.1128 oI 2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, HyderabadBench. First respondent prayed to call for the records relating tonotification dated 16.3.2016, declare non inclusion of the firstrespondent in the panel of 2or4-r5Ao Grade-A/ Junior scare of Indian Railways [Service ][and including ][the ][junior ][as illegal ][and ][to ][consequently]declare that [the applicant ][is ][entitled ][for ][promotion ][on ][par ][with ][his ][junior']

5. On behalf [of petitioners' ][it ][was pleaded ][before ][the Tribunal]that two crimes [were registered ][against ][{irst ][respondent ][and ][based ][on]the crime [registered ][on 30'1L2O14 ][he ][was placed ][under ][suspension ][on]g.12.2014 and in the said crime [charge ][sheet ][was ][filed by the ][appellants]and the [first ][respondent is ][facing ][trial ][in ][CC ][No' ][10 ][of ][2017 on ][the file ][of]the XVI Metropolitan [Magistrate, ][i(ukatpally at Miyapur' ][therefore' ][he ][is]not entitled [for ][promotion' ][It ][is ][also ][further ][asserted ][that ][since ][serious]allegations [are ][made ][against ][first ][respondent' ][he ][cannot ][be ][given]in [sensitive ][post' ]The Tribunal [observed ][that ][crime]assignment ot [26.8.2011 was ][resolved ][through Lok Adalath and ][that ][on]registered cc No. lo ol [2ol7 ][on the file ][of XVI ][Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally']as tligh Court [stayed ][conducting ][oi ][trial, ][it ][cannot ][be ][said ][that ][criminal]are [pending. ][Thus, ][overrulir-rg ][the ][objection ][of ][the]proceedings and [holding ][that ][no ][criminal ][case ][was ][pending ][against]petitioners the [Tribunal ][<lirected ][granting ][of ][posting ][in ][any]respondent, non-sensitive [post ][within the ][circle ][in ][Telecommunication ][wing ][or ][any]other wings [of the ][organization ][on ][deputation' ][Holding ][that ][as there ][is]no disciplinary /criminal [proceedings ][pending' the ][principle laid ][down ][by]Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][in ][Janakiraman's ][case ][is ][applicable']respondents [were directed ][to ][adopt ][the ][procedure ][laid ][down ][in ][DOPT]Memo dated [14.g.1gg2 ][and to grant ][promotion ][to the ][first ][respondent ][if]he is found otherwise [eligible']

6. Admittedly on [the ][date of ][consideration' ][first ][respondent ][was]facing two criminal [cases, ][though, ][subsequently, one ][crime ][was ][closed]settlement [through ][Lok ][Adalath' ][In ][the Crime ][No' ][899 ][of 2Ol4]by way of registered on 30.11.2014 [charge ][sheet ][was ][filed and ][first ][respondent ][is]facing trial in cc [No. ][lo ][of ][2077, ][though ][for ][the ][present ][trial ][in ][the]criminal proceedings [are stayed ][on account ][of ][orders of ][this ][court ][dated]

12.6.2019 [made ][in ][Criminal ][Petition ][No' ][2650 ][of ][2Ol9' ][Since ][the ][trial ][in]criminal [proceedings ][was ][stayed ][because ][of ][orders ][of this ][Court' ][it]cannot be [said ][that ][criminal ][proceedings ][are ][not ][pending' ][The ][trial ][is]only [postponed ][because ][of ][the ][stay granted ][by ][this ][Court' ][Further' ][on]the [ground ][of ][involvement ][in ][criminal ][case ][in ][Crime No'899 ][dated]30.11.2014 [first ][respondent was placed ][under ][suspension on ][9'12'2014']

7 . The scope [of ][consideration ][of an ][employee ][for ][promotion]when he is facing [criminal ][prosecution ][or ][crime ][is ][registered ][was]considered [by ][this ][Court in ][A'Jalender ][Reddy ][Vs' ][State ][of ][Telanganal']On review [of precedent ][decisions' ][this ][Court ][noted ][as ][under:]

53. The precedent [decisions ][by the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme Court]broadly?al [witft'ifrtet ][clilferent contingencies and ][for ][convenience ][they ][can]be Dut into three [caregones. ][i" ][ir]. ][n.i, ][category ][of ][cases, ][supreme ][court]["H:;;;;;;; ;';-.,"" '"iiir"""t oi u'' 'L'itov"'-ior promotion [can ][be]deferred. [ln ][the ][second ][.ut"go.y" ][oiau""", ][supr"me ][court ][was ][considering]for promotion [can ][be deferred]the situation [when ][entitlemeni'tir ][t" ]"tpi"vtt even cases, though [Supreme ][a ][formal ][Court ]"r-'^tg" [dealt ][t'iift ]"i"Ji'*"""to't "it"utio"" ' where [i"t"a' ]though [In ][the ][charge ][third ][category ][sheet was][of]i"ltiution / [conclusion ][of ][disciplinary]issued there [was ][inordrnate ][i"r"v- ][l" ],i.-"t".di"* ""0 [trt. ][.o"tt. ][tr'li'"i.,o"ra ][rc ][adopted ][by ][the ][courts ][whenever]lucn issui [arises for consideration]

CATEGORY [: ][II]

55. Decisions [in ][Ciuit APPedl ][Nos'51'55 ][oi ][Tggo ][(as ][Pdrt ][ol]K.V.Janakiramant, [n'c'xr'u'a;;:- ][Kt;ti ][Kumari. ][n's'str,arrrrl--inl];;;i;ffi;i;iltjir ,.,,o tr',i" t't'gotv [ln ][rhese ][decisions' ][a ][departure ][rs]made from [rhe aborn ][nroao ][oriniipie ][lt ][is ][necessary ][and ][expedient ][to]i"".t4..1n.". [o*Gon" ][i" ][littlJ ][more ][detail' at ][the ][cost ][of repetition]56'inK'V.Janakiraman,appealsw_erepreferredagainstthertiuu""l [and ][the ][decision oI]decision [of ][Full ][Bench ]"l [ct";;i;;;;i5ti"il'e ]A11 appeals [were clubbed ][and]Central [Administrutl'e ][ttiuut'ii';;;;" ]considered [There were ][tnt";':;;;;;^;;estions' ][involved ][in ][the ][batch ][of]cases before [the ][Supreme ][cl"ti "-o""'"i ][the ][questions considered ][was']"whdt [ts ][the ][ddte ][ftom ][tniZi'it ]"i"-Li ""ta [tiat ][dtsctpltnary/crlminal]p';;;;;i;s'; pLndtns asainst [an ][emptosee"']","

57'lnK'v.Janakiraman,afterconsidering.the-decisionofFullBench of [Central ][Administraii" ][ttlut-t'''^t on ][various- ][clauses ][of ][O ][M ][on]sealed cover [procedLrre, ][s;;;t'-; -c;;;i ][t?":'dt,t-t9,..:td"rs ][passed ][bv]Benches of [Central ][nArn"tlJt*ti'" ][Tribunal ][in ][individual ][cases ][lt ][is]aDoropriate [to ][note ][the ][ob"t*uiro"" ][tuO" ][Uy ][the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][Cl'il]ippeal [Nos.5 ][7'55 ][oJ ][1990']58 [The facts ][of ][these appeals noted as ][in ][paragraphs ][36 and 37 of]proceedings [as ][well ][as ][criminal]the iudqment [would ][reveal ][rtt'i'i ]"clptinar.y ;;: Leave [J..,?;;'' ]Travel [Concessron ]-;; [;,1:':l,l-:ll* ][cla ]f:[:Um:l':::;?1,':i:'::#:::15.07.1983. [They]rhem. [The emplovees ][were ][placed ][under ][suspenston ][on]The amount [of]admitted [guilt ][and ][pi"^d'd ]["':1'""::t;;;; ]@";"p"nsion Rs 1600/- [was ][deposjted ][in ][October' ][1983 On ][depositing ][the ][amount'];.;;;;ir" *as rerotea in [November, ][i983 ][A lenient ][view ][w'as ][taken ][and]prosecutions [were ][dropped ][on ][14 ][01 ]-1985' [but ][without ][prejudice ][to]".irii"tf ifr. J"pi.t-""tal [proceedings. ][Formal charge ][sheel ].was [issued ][on]. [While ][so, ][the ][Delpartmental Promotion Committee ][met ][in July']ii.tz.ig,gz isa; ih" opc [resorted ][to ][sealed cover ][procedure agarnst ][these empioyees.]

59. On challenge, [Tribunal ][directed promotions ][to ][be ][Siven ][to]the 'f 98O. employees - !"i."-. on Court [the ][basis of ]found fault [the ][with the ][recommendations ][said ][direction ][of the ][Supreme ][DPC ][in ][Court][Juiy']fr.fa-tnat mechanical [view of the earlier decision of ][the ][Full ][Bench ][was]erroneous."""i, 60, Supreme [Court ][observed ][as ][under:]

In [uieo ][of ][the ][o.'f,resdjd peculiar ][Jacts ][of ][the present]"3g. case, the [DPC ][-which ][met ][in Julg ][7986 ][was ][iustiJied ][in]resortlng to the [sealed ][couer ]Procedure, [notwithstdnding ][the]fact [thit ][the chdrge'sheet ][ln ][the departmental ][proceedings]'wcls lssued in August/December, 7987' The Tribunal wa,s'therefore, not J;s$Jied [in ][mechanicallA ][dpplglng ][the]deciiion oJ the Fuu [Bench ][to ][the ]focts [of the ][present ][case]and also ii-r directing [all ][benefits ][to ][be ][gilcn ][to ][the ][employees]including payment oi [ar.enrs ][of ][saiary' ][We ][are ][of the ][vie$' that]even if t-he iesults [in ][the ][sealcd ][cover ][entitle the ][employees to]promotion from the date [their ][immcdiate ][juniors ][rvere promoted]and they are, [therefore, ][so ][promoted and ][given ][notional ][benefits of]seniority etc., the [employees ][in ][no ][case ][should ][bc ][given ][anl]u.reo."if salary. [The denial of the benefit oI ][sa1ary"n'i11, ][of ][course']be in addition to the [penalty, ][il ][any, ][imposecl ][on the ][emplo!ees at]appeals the end of the disciplinary as above [with no order as to ][proceedings ][We, therelore, ][allolv ]costs [these]"(emphasis suPPlied)

61. At this stage, it is [also appropriate to ][notc the ][observations of ][the]Supreme Court in tnion [of ][India ][v. ][Tejinder ][Singh2' ][This ][appeal ][u'as]preferred against the [interim ][directions ][issued ][by the ][Central]iaministrative Tribunal. The [Tribunal ][directed ][thc ][Union ][of India ][to]consider and [promote ]the [respondent irrespectivc ][ol ][whether departmental]enquiry was contemplated [or ][pending ][Supretr1e ][Court ][observed ][that ][this]direction virtually amounted [to ][pre- ][judging the ][whole ][issue ][before ][the]Tribunal.

62. Supreme Court [observed as ][under:]

"4. .......... we would [like ][to ][record ][that ][the ][Tribunal ][had ][no]jurisdiction whatever whiie dealing with a [petition to ][quash ][the]contemplated departmental [enquiry ][against ][the ][respondent, ][to]make an interim order of [this ][nature. ][We ][are also ][not ][satisfied]as to the cotrectness [of ][the view ][expressed ][by ][the ][Tribunal]that a contemplated departmental [inquiry or ][pendency of ][a]departmental [proceeding ][cannot ][be ][a ][ground for ][withholding]consideration for Promotion [or ][the ][promotion ][itself' ][we ][arc]not aware of any rule or [principle to waffant ][such ][a ][view' ][As]at present advised, [we ][do not ][subscribe ][to the ][view]expre6sed by the Tribunal"'

(emphasis suPPIied)

63. ln H.C.Khurana, [Supreme ][Court held ][that ][adopting ][sealed]cover procedure is valid [if ][decision ][to ][frame charges ][rvas ][taken and ][charges]were iramed earlier to meeting [of ][DPC ][and ][it ][is ][not ][necessary ][that ][the]charge sheet should [be ]actually [served, ][ln ][Kewal Kumar, ][Supreme ][Court]neldlhat on recording of the [FIR ][by the ][CBi, ][if ][a ][decision ][is ][takert ][by]disciplinary authority to initiate [disciplinary ][action ][is ][sufficient ][and ][no]formil chirge sheet is required [to ][keep ][the ][result ][of ][employee ][claim ][for]promotion in a sealed cover. In R.S.Sharma, [Supreme ][Court ][observed ][that]before employee could be actually [promoted sanction ][for ][prosecution ][was]granted and thus though sealed cover [procedure was ][not attracted ][when ][it]was obserwed but no promotion cart [be granted ][on account ][of ][subsequent]

development. The view ol the Supreme Court in K,V.Janaklraman, echoedin H.C.Khurana, Kewal Kumar, R.S.Sharma and Tejinder Singh, u'ouldshow that in the facts of a given case it is permissibie to differ promotioneven when no formal charge sheet is drawn / served in departmentalproceedings or charge sheet is filed in a criminal case. It is also relevant tonote that the decisions in K.V.Janakiraman and R,S.Sharma were bvbenches composing of three Iearned judges.

B.

Since, first respondent is facing criminal proceedings, it is not in public interest to grant him promotion/ to assign him sensitiveposting, more particularly when first respondent is part of theTelecommunication and Signal Service, which is highly sensitive wing ofthe Indian Railways.the Indian Railways.

9. The order of the Tribunal dated 9.11.2020 is set aside andthe writ petition is allowed. However, it is needless to mention that thisCourt is not expressing any opinion on the posting granted to lirstrespondent on 28.5.2020 and continuing him in the said postingnotwithstanding the dismissal of this writ petition. However, it isneedless to observe that it is open to petitioners to transfer respondentanylvhere, in the exigencies of service. No costs. Miscellaneousapplications, if any pending stand closed.

SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDYASSISTANTtEGISTRAR

i/TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. P' Rajasekhar, s/o. Late [p. ]suguna Rao, Aged about 55 years, occ- DivisionarSignal and,Tetelom_Engineer, South Centrjt Railway, nail trlilJiam Zth ii;;;-secunderabad R/o. Rairway euarters No. 95s/4, soutn Lailaguia, MettugudaSecunderabad.secunderabad R/o. Rairway euarters No. 95s/4, soutn Lailaguia, MettugudaSecunderabad.

2. tV. Nagaiah, S/o. Not Known, Occ- Divisional Siqnal and Telecom Enoineer( Projects ), O/o. Deputy Chief Signat and Tetec6m enqineeiiFroi;li; i--l\/icrowave Centre. Sough Central Railwav, Secundera-bad _ SOOO2S3. One CC to Sri. [pUSHptNDER ]KAUR Advocate tOpUClNagaiah, S/o. Not Known, Occ- Divisional Siqnal and Telecom Enoineer( Projects ), O/o. Deputy Chief Signat and Tetec6m enqineeiiFroi;li; i--l\/icrowave Centre. Sough Central Railwav, Secundera-bad _ SOOO2S3. One CC to Sri. [pUSHptNDER ]KAUR Advocate tOpUCl One CC to Sri. CC to Sri. to Sri. Sri. KAUR 4 One CC to Sri. AKKAIV ESHWAR Advocare tOplJCl5. Two CD Copies6. One Spare Copy4 One CC to Sri. AKKAIV ESHWAR Advocare tOplJCl5. Two CD Copies6. One Spare Copy SA\u- HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212021

ORDERWP.No.18594 ot [2021]

ALLOWINGTHE W.PWITHOUT COSTS

2. "i['a,E][ sTAl6]01F"rfi [?022]