Ramji Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1101 of 2020

Ramji Singh, son of Late Musafir Singh, Resident of Argora By-Pass Raod, Puran Vihar, P.O.- Ashok Nagar, P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

- Versus -

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Bhawan, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

¶6

The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Bhawan, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

¶7

The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Bhawan, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶11

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Richa Lal, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate

¶12

06/08.08.2024

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

The petitioner Ramji Singh has filed this writ application for quashing of order dated 07.12.2018 passed in Memo No.8914 (Annexure9), whereby and whereunder claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Section Officer in the light of the judgment dated 31.08.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.7013 of 2012 has been arbitrarily rejected and sealed cover arrangement for promotion of the petitioner has been directed to be maintained.

¶15

The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 30.10.2012 in so far as it relates to the petitioner at Sl.No.34 and whereby, the promotion granted to the petitioner was withdrawn and the promotion of the petitioner was kept in sealed cover.

¶16

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant under the Secretariat Services on 06.10.1990. He was promoted to the post of Section Officer on 30.07.2010. Subsequently, a criminal case being R.C. Case No.4A/2010-AHD-R(G) was instituted against the petitioner and

¶17

-2-

¶18

subsequently, his provisional promotion was recalled on 30.10.2012 on the ground that criminal case was pending against him and also on the ground that he was junior to some of the employees who were not given promotion.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that at the time when the provisional promotion of the petitioner was recalled, chargesheet was not filed in R.C. Case No.4A/2010-AHD-R(G). It was further submitted that subsequently junior employees have been promoted. It was finally submitted that as no chargesheet was filed against the petitioner on date when his provisional promotion was recalled. The arrangement of keeping a post reserved under sealed cover is highly arbitrary and devoid of any merit and is against the ratio laid down in the case of Kameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others as reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Jhar 3175 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. K. V. Jankiraman and Others as reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 .

¶20

Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State has not denied this facts, but he submitted that on the date when his provisional promotion was recalled. Sanction was accorded for initiating a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. However, on specific query, he submitted that no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner as yet.

¶21

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. K. V. Jankiraman and Others as reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 has held at paragraph-16, which as follows:-

¶22

“16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be

¶23

-3-

¶24

sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any chargememo/chargesheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it slould not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a ,remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows:

¶25

"(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official;

¶26

(2) ................................................

¶27

(3) .............................................

¶28

(4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before .”

¶29

In view of ratio laid down the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. V. Jankiraman and Others ( Supra ), the sealed cover procedure is to be resorted took only after charge-memo / chargesheet is issued. The pendency of criminal preliminary investigation prior to the stage will not be sufficient to unable the authority to adopt the sealed cover procedure. Pursuant to the ratio laid down in the case of K. V. Jankiraman and Others ( Supra ) , the State of Jharkhand has also laid down guidelines for

¶30

-4-

¶31

issued by personal department for adopting procedure of sealed cover vide Resolution No.6227 dated 20.11.2008, it has been resolved by the State Government that sealed cover procedure will not be adopted in the case of employees and whom a criminal case is pending, until chargesheet has been submitted against him.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned Memo No.8914 dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure – 9) is hereby quashed. The recommendation of departmental promotion committee dated 30.10.2012 is also quashed. The petitioner shall be given promotion as per seniority on the next promotional post, which shall be subject to the final decision of the criminal case pending against him.

¶33

This writ application is allowed.

¶34

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶35

Jay/-

Ramji Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajyabhasha

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bindhyachal Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Pr Secretary Deptt of Personnel Administrative Refroms and Rajbhasha

Saket Kumar Vs the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation through Its Commissioner

Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through Its Commissioner