Case: Amolak Singh Chhabra Vs State of M.P. and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Judges | Subbash Samvatsar and A.P. Shrivastava, JJ. |
| Issue | Service Laws |
| Citation | 2009 (5) MPHT 233 |
| Judgement Date | August 21, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
Subbash Samvatsar, J., (Gwalior Bench)
-
This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant [respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition No. 3584/08 (S)] assailing the judgment dated 15-5-09 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by Suresh Chandra Pandey, i.e., the respondent No. 3 before the Court is allowed.
-
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Suresh Chandra Pandey was appointed as District Excise Officer on 12-8-83 while Amolak Singh Chhabra, appellant before this Court and who was joined as respondent No. 3 before the Writ Court was appointed on the same post on 22-3-88. Thus, admittedly, the Suresh Chandra Pandey was senior to Amolak Singh Chhabra, in the cadre of District Excise Officer.
-
In the year 2002, a Departmental Promotion Committee was held for considering the cases of District Excise Officers for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Excise). The Departmental Promotion Committee after considering the cases of Suresh Chandra Pandey and Amolak Singh Chhabra promoted them to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Excise). The petitioner Suresh Chandra Pandey being senior to the present appellant Amolak Singh Chhabra was placed at Serial No. 1 while the name of Amolak Singh Chhabra was at Serial No. 3. This shows that the petitioner Suresh Chandra Pandey continued to be the senior to Amolak Singh Chhabra in the Cadre of Assistant Commissioner (Excise).
-
The Departmental Promotion Committee again met in the year 2006 for considering the cases for promotion from the post of Assistant Commissioner (Excise) to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Excise). There is no dispute that the criteria for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Excise) is merit-cum-seniority. The Departmental Promotion Committee, after considering the cases of petitioner Suresh Chandra Pandey and the appellant Amolak Singh Chhabra, placed Amolak Singh Chhabra at Serial No. 1 in the merit list while Suresh Chandra Pandey was placed at Serial No. 1 in the wait-list. The Selection Committee after considering the ACRs of Amolak Singh Chhabra allotted 20 marks while the Selection Committee allotted 14 marks to the petitioner Suresh Chandra Pandey.
-
Before the Departmental Promotion Committee was held, a challan was filed against the Amolak Singh Chhabra in the Ratlam Court on 28-3-06. In view of the fact that Amolak Singh Chhabra was facing criminal proceedings, the result of the DPC in respect of Amolak Singh Chhabra was kept in sealed cover and Suresh Chandra Pandey, the petitioner, was promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Excise) vide order dated 26-5-06 (Annexure P-4). From perusal of the said order, it is clear that the petitioner was promoted on officiating basis.
-
The criminal proceedings initiated against Amolak Singh Chhabra came to an end and he was discharged by the Criminal Court vide order dated 30-10-06 on the ground that the Government has not granted any sanction to prosecute him under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, by order dated 12-11-07, the Government refused to grant sanction to prosecute Amolak Singh Chhabra and thus he was acquitted of the criminal case.
-
In spite of his discharge from criminal case, the sealed cover of Amolak Singh Chhabra was not opened. Hence, he filed a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P. (S) No. 469/08. This writ petition was allowed by this Court on 1-5-08 and the Single Judge of this Court after hearing the writ petition directed to open the sealed cover and give effect to the same. This order was challenged by Suresh Chandra Pandey by filing writ appeal bearing W.A. No. 364/08, which was decided on 24-7-08, vide Exh. P-16.
-
The main contention of the petitioner, i.e., Suresh Chandra Pandey in the aforesaid writ petition was that he was necessary party in the writ petition filed by Amolak Singh Chhabra and the writ petition was filed without impleading him as a party. This argument was negatived by the Division Bench of this Court by holding that Amolak Singh Chhabra had filed the writ petition only for the relief of opening of the sealed cover and giving effect to it. Thus, Suresh Chandra Pandey was not a necessary party in the said petition. In Para 12 of...
To continue reading
Request your trial