Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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