O. A. No. 472-HR of 2010, O. A. No. 1052-HR of 2010. Case: 1. D. N. Taneja S/o Late Nathla Ram Taneja, IFS, Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forestry, Panchkula, Haryana, 2. Kishan Lal Manhas, IFS, PCCF-cum-Managing Director, Haryana Forest Development Corporation Limited, Panchkula Vs 1. Union of India, Through Secretary to Government of India, Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife, New Delhi, 2. Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi, Through its Secretary, 3. State of Haryana, Through Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Forest Department, Chandigarh, 4. K. L. Minhas, IFS, Managing Director, Haryana Forest Development Corporation Limited, Panchkula. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO. A. No. 472-HR of 2010, O. A. No. 1052-HR of 2010
JudgesS. D. Anand (Judicial Member) & Khushi Ram (Accountant Member)
IssueIndian Forest Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1966
Judgement DateMarch 21, 2011
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

S. D. Anand (Judicial Member), (Chandigarh Bench)

  1. The commonness of the point for adjudication in these two O.As persuades us to take these up for a joint disposal.

    Factual scenario in O.A.No.472-HR of 2010, titled D.N. Taneja vs. Union of India & others in the first instance:-

  2. Applicant - Shri D.N. Taneja (hereinafter referred to as 'applicant Shri Taneja') is a 1977 Batch officer of the Haryana Cadre of the Indian Forest Service ('IFS' for short). He was posted as Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as 'APCCF') with effect from 4.1.2010 and superannuated with effect from 30.9.2010.

  3. The Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'DPC') met on 20.3.2009 for consideration of the claims of members of the Indian Forest Service ('who had completed minimum of 25 years of service with reference to the year of allotment and subject to the provisions of Rule 9(7) of the Indian Forest Service (Pay Rules) 1968'), for promotion to the post of APCCF. The following officers (seniority-wise), were eligible and within the zone of consideration:-

    Sr. No. Name of the officer S/Sh. Date of appointment in IFS Cadre Source of recruitment Year of Allotment

  4. K. L. Manhas, IFS 1.3.1976 Direct 1976

  5. Parvez Ahmed, IFS 1.3.1977 Direct 1977

  6. D. N. Taneja, IFS 1.3.1977 Direct 1977

  7. C. R. Jotriwal, IFS 1.4.1980 Direct 1979

  8. S. S. Jattan, IFS 1.4.1980 Direct 1980

  9. The DPC approved the names of two seniormost officers, one Shri K.L. Manhas (Respondent No.4 herein and applicant in O.A.No.1072-HR of 2010) (hereinafter referred to as 'applicant Shri Manhas') and Shri Parvez Ahmed, who were found fit for promotion to the post aforementioned. The recommendations made by the DPC came to be implemented only in respect of Mr. Parvez Ahmed with effect from 1.4.2009 and the consideration pertaining to applicant Shri Manhas was retained in a 'sealed cover' (to be opened on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings). The relevant order dated 26.5.2009 is available on record as Annexure A-4.

  10. The State Government (Respondent No.3 herein) imposed a penalty of simple warning upon Respondent No.4, vide order dated 15.7.2009 (Annexure A-1) 'whereas intention of the Government was to impose penalty of censure upon respondent No.4 but used the word penalty of simple warning instead of penalty of censure.' The proposed penalty ought to have been forwarded to the UPSC 'for final decision as per procedure in All India Service (Discipline and Punishment) Rules'. However, the Government of Haryana did not forward the papers to the U.P.S.C. and proceeded to open the sealed cover and give effect to the D.P.C. proceedings. On that basis, applicant Shri Manhas came to be promoted as APCCF retrospectively, with effect from 1.4.2009 (i.e. the date of promotion of Sh. Parvez Ahmed). The opening of the sealed cover was violative of the instructions, dated 6.11.2007 (Annexure A-5), issued by the Government of India 'after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.8.1991 in the case of Union of India vs. K. V. Jankiraman etc.', reported as AIR 1991 SC 2010. Apart from the grant of promotion with retrospective effect, the consequential benefits also came to be granted to the applicant Shri Manhas in terms of order dated 30.7.2009 (Annexure A-2).

  11. It was applicant Shri Manhas himself who, vide his letter dated 11.8.2009, informed the State Government that 'penalty of simple warning is not included as one of the penalties in All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969.' It was, then, that it came to the notice of the State Government that there had been an error in the imposition of penalty upon Respondent No.4. It was then only that it was proposed to impose a penalty of 'censure' upon the applicant Shri Manhas and the matter, in the context, was 'referred to UPSC for decision on penalty and the matter is still pending'.

  12. Thereafter, another D.P.C. was held on 11.12.2009 for consideration of names for promotion to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as 'PCCF'). On account of the promotion granted to the applicant Shri Manhas with effect from 1.4.2009, he also came to be promoted to the post of PCCF w.e.f. 4.1.2010.

  13. Applicant Shri Taneja applied for invalidation of the above two promotions given to the applicant Shri Manhas on a precise averment that the opening of the sealed cover was violative of the instructions issued by the Government of India in pursuance of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jankiraman's case 1992 (1) ATJ 373 SC. The plea, raised in the context, is that if those instructions had been followed, the sealed cover could not have been opened and given effect to.

  14. The further ground of challenge is that the imposition of a simple warning as a penalty upon applicant Shri Minhas was not in order inasmuch as the penalty aforementioned is not indicated in the extant Rules to be a statutory penalty.

  15. On the above foundational premise, applicant Shri Taneja applied for quashing of the order dated 15.7.2009 (Annexure A-1)...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT