Section 106 IEA Cannot Fill the Gaps in a Shaky Prosecution Case: Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Investigative Lapses in Murder Trial Accident Claim | Ration Card Cannot Decide a Man’s Age: Punjab & Haryana High Court Forgery in Wife’s Name and Defiance of Court Orders Amount to Contempt: Kerala High Court Limitation | Selectively Active Litigant Cannot Seek Liberal Condonation: Delhi High Court Refuses to Revive 1589 Days’ Delay Mere Unnatural Death Within Seven Months Is Not Dowry Death: Delhi High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal in Ruby Hanging Case A Partition Suit Is a Suit for Land: Bombay High Court Rejects Plaint for Want of Clause XII Leave Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be A Shortcut To Reclaim Property Registered In Wife's Name: Bombay High Court State Bound By Its Concession; More Meritorious Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Supreme Court Balances Equity In Rajasthan Grade III Teacher Recruitment Penalty For Delayed Compensation Is The Employer's Personal Fault — Insurance Company Cannot Be Made To Pay For The Employer's Own Default: Supreme Court Bail Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise in Murder and Atrocities Cases: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted on ‘Extraneous Considerations’ Even A Lathi Becomes A Murder Weapon When Repeatedly Aimed At The Head With Bone-Deep Force: Supreme Court Applies The Virsa Singh Test To Demolish The Defence That Lathis Are Not Deadly Weapons Section 149 IPC While Demanding Proof Of Individual Fatal Blow Runs Contrary To The Very Principle Of Vicarious Liability: Supreme Court Statement Under Section 108 Is Substantive Evidence If Voluntary:  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Smuggling Case U.P. Anti-Conversion Act Does Not Apply To Interfaith Live-In Relationships Unless Actual Conversion Is Intended: Allahabad High Court Section 480(6) BNSS | If Trial Is Not Concluded Within Sixty Days… Such Person Shall Be Released On Bail: MP High Court Bombay High Court Lifts Stay on Banks’ Fraud Proceedings Against Anil Ambani Preventive Detention Cannot Survive Without Supplying Relied Upon Documents: Karnataka High Court Reasserts Article 22(5) Safeguards Court Subordinate Who Attended Duty Drunk, Abused Advocates & Misbehaved With Judge's Family Gets No Mercy: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal From Service XXXVII Rule 3 CPC | Claim Of 24% Interest Without Prima Facie Contract Cannot Be Blindly Accepted In Summary Proceedings : Madras High Court On Summary Suit Defence Re-Testing Under NDPS Act Cannot Be a Tool to Overcome an Adverse Lab Report: J&K High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet After First Report Ruled Out Heroin Shocking And Disturbing That Cows Died Due To Starvation: Kerala High Court Pulls Up Travancore Devaswom Board Over Neglect Of Temple Gosala Promoter Cannot Retain Ownership By Merely Using The Word ‘Lease’: Bombay High Court Upholds Ownership Deemed Conveyance Under MOFA

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