Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Chandra Bhushan Sharma v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 48893 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16018 (14 September 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Court No.3

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.48893 of 2006

Chandra Bhushan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others



(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.C. Misra)


For the Petitioner: S/Sri Ashwani K. Mishra &

         D.V. Singh

For the Respondents: Sri Vijendra Singh,

Chief standing counsel-II

Amitava Lala, J.: This writ petition has been made not to withhold recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 24.8.2006 for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer Level-II, on the basis of the charge sheet dated 25.8.2006 and further it is prayed to grant benefit of the promotion to the petitioner from the date when juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Chief Engineer Level-II.

The petitioner contended that the departmental proceeding and filing of charge sheet etc. is nothing but an eye wash in which he was earlier exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. The charge was in respect of continuation of the adhoc employees for a period of 240 days exceeding one year. The only question raised by the authority is that 240 days in a year means a period from January to December of the said year not from such date to the next year completing 12 calendar months. In any event since the petitioner was exonerated, the petitioner's promotion cannot be withheld. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the finality of the Inquiry Officer and made censure entry in the service record. Again when the second promotion was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee, it was withheld by a subsequent charge sheet in connection with earthwork of 6 kilometers in an area for which memorandum of understanding was executed through a governmental agency and was cancelled on 21st April 2005 without payment of money.

It appears to us that the petitioner is a victim of circumstances. The petitioner contended before the Court that in both the occasions reply to the charge sheet was given in time but in spite of the same in the later one as some other person has not given reply the same was withheld. We are of the view that now we have to consider the legal aspect in short. In respect with the similar situation in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Vineet Singh and others, reported in 2000 (7) SCC 210, it is categorically held by the Supreme Court that ''the mere fact that by the time the disciplinary proceedings in the first inquiry ended in his favour and by the time the sealed cover was opened to give effect to it, another departmental inquiry was started by the Department, would not come in the way of giving him the benefit of the assessment by the first Departmental Promotion Committee in his favour in the anterior selection'.

However, in the midst of the hearing, the learned chief standing counsel took instructions and said that the petitioner has been granted promotion irrespective of the inquiry proceeding. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has further contended that the petitioner has already been selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee and as because the matter is pending before this Court no effect has been given. The department is ready and willing to get effect irrespective of the result of the inquiry proceeding. On the basis of such submission, we do not find any reason to keep the writ petition pending but to dispose of the same with the direction to the authority to give effect to the promotion of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period or fortnight from the date of communication of this order and the benefit will be given from when the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Chief Engineer Level-II. Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of. The interim order cannot have any existence in view of the final order as passed by this Court.

No order is passed as to costs.

              ( Justice Amitava Lala )

I agree

( Justice V.C. Misra )

September 14, 2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.