Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2801/2011 of VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKEON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2801 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
VINOD KUMAR TIWARI S/O LATE BADRI PRASAD,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:RETD.ASST.DIRECTOR HANDLOOM G 1 SAYAMENSION HARISHANKARPURAM LASHKAR GWALIOR(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA -ADVOCTE )
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF M.P. TH.PRINCIPAL SECRETARYGRAMODYOG DEPTT. VALLABH BHAVANBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.COMMISSIONER CUM DIRECTOR, HANDLOOM,CIVIL LINES, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.SHRI S.P. TIWARI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,HANDLOOM, THR. COMMISSIONER CUMDIRECTOR, HANDLOOM, CIVIL LINES, BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)HANDLOOM, THR. COMMISSIONER CUMDIRECTOR, HANDLOOM, CIVIL LINES, BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI S.S. KUSHWAHA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India isdirected against the rejection of the representation of the petitioner for non-consideration of his claim for promotion in a DPC conducted on 4.11. 1996
and thereafter second DPC conducted on 5.9.1998.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset placed an orderdated 2.01.2008 passed in W.P. No. 2702 of 2006 whereby the order ofpunishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and thedismissal of the appeal preferred against the said order, which appears to havebeen the cause of non-considering the case of the petitioner for promotion onthe post of Assistant Director, was quashed and the matter was relegated backto the authorities to pass an appropriate order for imposition of some minorpenalty if the authorities think it appropriate. After remitting the matter to theauthority, a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments without non-cumulative effect was imposed and as the very reason for non-consideration ofthe petitioner for promotion had already come to an end in the year 2008 itself,the respondent/competent authority was required to conduct review DPC forconsidering the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of AssistantDirector but instead of directing for the same the representation of the petitionerwas illegally rejected and while rejecting said representatin no reason has beenassigned for non-consideration of the petitioner for promotion.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the aforesaidquashment of the major penalty imposed against the petitioner submitted thatthe competent authority be directed to conduct review DPC and consider thecase of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Director.
Per contra, Shri Kushwaha, learned Govt. Advocate submitted thatthough impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 9th of August, 2010 does notreflect the reason for non-consideration of the petitioner for promotion but thefact remains that the petitioner was not found fit for promotion in the DPC heldon 4.11.1996 and later on held on 05.09.1998 and now at this juncture since the petitioner stood retired the effect of order dated 2.1.2008 passed in W.P.2202/2006 is required to be gone into and for that the petitioner may be directedto file a fresh representation narrating all the factual details alongwith all therelevant documents before the competent authority and in case while decidingthe said representation the competent authorities comes to a conclusion that areview DPC is required to be held then appropriate decision in the matter can betaken by the competent authority in that regard.
Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal Annexure P/1 dated 9th of August, 2010 i.e. the impugnedorder herein, this Court finds that in the DPC conducted on 4.11.1996 and5.9.1998 by the respondent/authorities the petitioner was not found fit andthough reason was not assigned which was made the basis for his non-consideration for promotion, now, since the petitioner had retired in the year2003, just for the purpose of the monetary benefits which could have accruedto the petitioner in the year 1996 or 1998 a review DPC could be directed to beheld, for that first it is required to be seen by the competent authority whetherthe case of the petitioner is fit for his consideration for calling of review DPC, inthe light of the order dated 2.1.2008 passed in W.P. No. 2206/2006.
Thus, this Court deems it fit to direct the petitioner to file a freshrepresentation appending all the requisite documents before the competentauthority for said consideration and for conducting of review DPC and in casethe competent authority finds that the petitioner is entitle for promotion at parwith his juniors in the DPC conducted on 04.11.1996/5.9.1998 then directionfor conducting of a review DPC may be issued.
It is needless to observe that the competent authority is free to go into aspect of non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion in theyear 1996 as well as in the year 1998, apart from imposition of major penalty ofstoppage of two increments with cumulative effect which was set aside by thisCourt in W.P. No. 2206 of 2006 dated 02.01.2008.
Thus, the petitioner is directed to submit fresh representation within 15days from today and the same shall be considered and decided within eightweeks thereafter and the decision taken on the representation shall becommunicated to the petitioner.
With aforesaid observations and directions present petition standsdisposed of .
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)JUDGEar