Order Rejecting Impleadment Of Third Party Based On Jurisdictional Plea Is Appealable Under Section 37 Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court 21% Interest On Friendly Loan Is Unconscionable; Courts Must Exercise Discretion Judiciously Under Section 34 CPC: Delhi High Court Mere Execution Of Document Claiming Disputed Title Not 'Forgery'; False Claim Of Ownership Isn't 'False Document' U/S 464 IPC: Supreme Court Riding Triple On Motorcycle Does Not Per Se Amount To Contributory Negligence Without Evidence It Caused Accident: Uttarakhand High Court Absence Of Registration Of Sale Agreement Does Not Neutralize Allegations Of Fraud; Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail In Property Fraud Case Order 8 Rule 9 | Defendant Cannot Introduce Inconsistent Stand Via Additional Written Statement To Bypass Bar On Amending Pleadings After Trial: Supreme Court Constitutional Courts Can Impose Fixed-Term Sentence In Lieu Of Life Imprisonment If Period Exceeds 14 Years: Supreme Court Disciplinary Proceedings Are 'Pending' Only After Issuance Of Chargesheet; Rejection Of VRS Notice Requires Proper Application Of Mind: Supreme Court Section 304B IPC | Conviction Cannot Be Based On Unverified Letters Allegedly Written By Deceased Without Proof Of Handwriting: Supreme Court Investigating Agency Must Seek Magistrate’s Permission For Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CrPC: Supreme Court Public Servant’s Act Of Disarming Victims During Mass Violence Amounts To Abetment; Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Of Circle Officer Every Member Of Unlawful Assembly Vicariously Liable For Acts Committed In Prosecution Of Common Object: Supreme Court NI Act | Office Bearers Who Signed MoUs Or Financial Docs Can Be Prosecuted Even If They Didn't Sign The Bounced Cheque: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | Mere Designation As Office Bearer Not Sufficient For Vicarious Liability, Specific Role Must Be Disclosed: Supreme Court Administrative Office Orders Cannot Override Express Terms Of Concluded Contracts: Allahabad High Court Long Possession Alone Not Enough For Adverse Possession; 'Animus Possidendi' To Hold Against True Owner Essential: Delhi High Court Major Earning Sons Entitled To Compensation For Parent’s Death Even If Not Financially Dependent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Advocates Running Office From Residence Not Liable To Pay Commercial Electricity Rates: Madhya Pradesh High Court Absence Of Magistrate's Signature Or Seal On Contraband Inventory Renders Seizure Doubtful: Kerala High Court Election Commission Empowered To Conduct SIR Of Electoral Rolls; Can Conduct Limited Enquiry Into Citizenship: Supreme Court

High Court Directs Review DPC for Ad-Hoc Promotion of Government Servant with Pending Criminal Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the court has directed the constitution of a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider the ad-hoc promotion of a government servant who had a pending criminal case against him. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the “sealed cover procedure” and ensuring that no irreversible prejudice is caused to an employee’s career progression while safeguarding the department’s interests.

Highlighting the procedural lapse, the court stated, “The fault was of the respondents in not furnishing complete particulars to DPC.” The petitioner, who was found eligible for promotion without knowledge of the pending criminal charges, suffered the reversal of his promotion after three years and five months. The court recognized that the petitioner had suffered immense loss of reputation and dignity due to the procedural irregularity.

Citing relevant rules and guidelines, the court remarked, “Had the Sealed Cover Procedure been followed in 2018 when the promotions were made, the petitioner after the lapse of two years would have become entitled to ad hoc promotion.” It further emphasized the need for a Review DPC to assess the petitioner’s suitability for ad-hoc promotion, as discretion lies with the DPCs/Selection Committees.

The court directed the respondents to constitute the Review DPC within 30 days, considering the petitioner for ad-hoc promotion in accordance with the rules. The entire process is expected to be completed within one month, entitling the petitioner to all consequential benefits from the date of assuming the position of Inspector, General Duty.

This ruling serves as a reminder to authorities to diligently follow the prescribed procedures and consider the individual circumstances of employees, ensuring their career progression is not unduly hindered due to administrative lapses.                   

Date of Decision: July 18, 2023

PRADEEP SINGH RAWAT  vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Latest Legal News