Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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