Nihal Singh Vs. K.K. Gamkhar (dead) through Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 8410 Of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.86 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 51 of 1983)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.86 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 51 of 1983)
Petitioner: Nihal Singh
Respondent: K.K. Gamkhar (dead) through Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 8410 Of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.86 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 51 of 1983)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.86 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 51 of 1983)
Judges: SUJATA V.MANOHAR & M.SRINIVASAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 29, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Anup Choudhary, (Ms.Renu George) Advocate for Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR
Promotion and seniority – Officiating UDC in Land and Develop-ment Office Suspension due to contemplated enquiry, On 2.3.59 – Orders revoked on 24.2.60 – Orders on 6.4.73 of his deemed promo-tion to post of Superintendent – On review, orders canceled on 27.1073 – Punishment of with holding increments on result of depart mental enquiry – Followed by order of compulsory retire-ment on 5.10.76 – All orders challenged – Division Bench in LPA upholding the orders cancelling orders of deemed promotion and with holding two increments – UPC not eligible far promotion as was officiating- No vacancy existing No evidence of mala fides.Held that there was no justification to interfere with orders of Division Bench. (Para 3, 4.)
JUDGEMENT:
SRINIVASAN, J. :
1. The appellant was working as L.D.C. and officiating U.D.C. in Land & Development Office, Delhi Administration. He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 02.03.1959 because disciplinary enquiry was contemplated. The Land & Development Office was transferred to the Central Government and put under the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply in October, 1959. The case of the appellant was reviewed and the order of suspension was revoked w.e.f. 24.02. 1960. On 06.04.73, the Land & Development Officer issued an order whereby the appellant was deemed to have been promoted as Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 250-15-400 w.e.f. 25.02.1959. The position was reviewed by the Ministry and it directed cancellation of the order dated 06.04.73 as the seniori-ty of the appellant was still under consideration. Consequently an order was passed on 27.10.73 cancelling the earlier orders. On 24.08.76, an order was passed against the appellant as a result of a departmental enquiry holding that he was guilty of gross indiscipline and misconduct and awarding punishment of withhold-ing two increments with cumulative effect. A third order was passed on 05.10.76 compulsorily retiring the appellant from service. A fourth order was passed on 07.12.76 restricting his pay for the period of suspension to the amount of subsistence allowance.
2. The appellant challenged the said orders before the High Court of Delhi in C.W.187/77. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed all the orders. He issued several directions also regarding the fixation of seniority. The Union of India and the concerned officials preferred an appeal LPA 51/83. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 12.08.86 allowed the appeal partly. The Division Bench held that the order dated 27.10.73 cancelling the order of 06.04.73 granting deemed promo-tion retrospectively to the appellant was valid. The Division Bench also upheld the order withholding two increments with cumu-lative effect but agreed with the learned Single Judge in holding that the period of suspension will be treated as on duty. The quashing of the order of compulsory retirement was also upheld.
3. The main reasons given by the Division Bench are that the appellant was not eligible for promotion to the post of superin-tendent in 1959 as he was only a L.D.C. and officiating as U.D.C. and that there was no record to show the existence of any vacancy in the post of superintendent. The Appellate Bench could not also find any material to agree with the Single Judge on the question of malafides on the part of the officer who passed the order dated 27.10.73.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the findings arrived at by him should have been accepted by the Division Bench. We have perused the records placed before us. We do not find any material to support the contentions of the appellant’s counsel. The reasoning adopted by the Letters Patent Bench is well founded and there is no justification to interfere with the same. We find no merit in the appeal. It is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
1. The appellant was working as L.D.C. and officiating U.D.C. in Land & Development Office, Delhi Administration. He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 02.03.1959 because disciplinary enquiry was contemplated. The Land & Development Office was transferred to the Central Government and put under the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply in October, 1959. The case of the appellant was reviewed and the order of suspension was revoked w.e.f. 24.02. 1960. On 06.04.73, the Land & Development Officer issued an order whereby the appellant was deemed to have been promoted as Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 250-15-400 w.e.f. 25.02.1959. The position was reviewed by the Ministry and it directed cancellation of the order dated 06.04.73 as the seniori-ty of the appellant was still under consideration. Consequently an order was passed on 27.10.73 cancelling the earlier orders. On 24.08.76, an order was passed against the appellant as a result of a departmental enquiry holding that he was guilty of gross indiscipline and misconduct and awarding punishment of withhold-ing two increments with cumulative effect. A third order was passed on 05.10.76 compulsorily retiring the appellant from service. A fourth order was passed on 07.12.76 restricting his pay for the period of suspension to the amount of subsistence allowance.
2. The appellant challenged the said orders before the High Court of Delhi in C.W.187/77. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed all the orders. He issued several directions also regarding the fixation of seniority. The Union of India and the concerned officials preferred an appeal LPA 51/83. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 12.08.86 allowed the appeal partly. The Division Bench held that the order dated 27.10.73 cancelling the order of 06.04.73 granting deemed promo-tion retrospectively to the appellant was valid. The Division Bench also upheld the order withholding two increments with cumu-lative effect but agreed with the learned Single Judge in holding that the period of suspension will be treated as on duty. The quashing of the order of compulsory retirement was also upheld.
3. The main reasons given by the Division Bench are that the appellant was not eligible for promotion to the post of superin-tendent in 1959 as he was only a L.D.C. and officiating as U.D.C. and that there was no record to show the existence of any vacancy in the post of superintendent. The Appellate Bench could not also find any material to agree with the Single Judge on the question of malafides on the part of the officer who passed the order dated 27.10.73.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the findings arrived at by him should have been accepted by the Division Bench. We have perused the records placed before us. We do not find any material to support the contentions of the appellant’s counsel. The reasoning adopted by the Letters Patent Bench is well founded and there is no justification to interfere with the same. We find no merit in the appeal. It is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
