CWP No.7637 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.7637 OF 2006 DATE OF DECISION: 25-03-2008 Jagat Narain .....PETITIONER VERSUS The Food Corporation of India and others .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.H.S.Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 20.04.2006 (Annexures P2) communicated vide letter dated 01.05.2006 (Annexure P2/A) whereby the petitioner was not promoted though recommended for promotion by the Zonal Promotion Committee. It is the case of the petitioner that he was promoted to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I by the Regional Manager vide order dated 24.01.2005 in view of the order of Zonal Officer, Noida. The District Officer issued the order regarding promotion on 31.01.2005 and he joined as such. On 23.03.2005, he was informed that promotion order stood cancelled. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the CWP No.7637 of 2006 2 promotion order. The writ petition was allowed with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after observing the Rules of natural justice. It is thereafter the order Annexure P2 has been passed on 20.04.2006 whereby the promotion order has been cancelled. It has been found that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 09.06.2004 and the promotion order dated 09.12.2004 has been rightly cancelled by the Zonal Officer as the petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings on the day of his promotion. On 09.01.2008, learned counsel for the respondents sought some time to seek instructions from the Corporation in respect of consideration of claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant, Grade-I in view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings said to be pending from the date of promotion was finalized on 03.01.2005 whereby a minor penalty of recovery of Rs.5,000/- was imposed. Today, Mr. Gupta has produced a copy of the order dated 11.03.2008 passed after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. It was pointed out that the petitioner was involved in a vigilance case at the time of meeting of the Zonal Promotion Committee on 08.11.2004. In respect of subsequent promotion, it has been pointed out that the petitioner has been considered for promotion by the Zonal Promotion Committee in its meeting held during year 2005, 2006 and 2007 but the recommendations of the Zonal Promotion Committee were kept in sealed cover due to his continuous involvement in vigilance cases. It has been further pointed out that five vigilance cases were pending and thus the sealed cover cannot be acted upon at present. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the CWP No.7637 of 2006 3 disciplinary proceedings in two cases have been stayed by this Court in CWP No.19130 of 2005 and CWP No.17674 of 2005. Therefore, the sealed cover procedure adopted by the respondents is not tenable. As a matter of fact, the order passed by this Court on 08.12.2005 in the aforesaid writ petitions is stayed of the passing of the final order. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings are still pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents in the order dated 11.03.2008 that the sealed cover procedure adopted in respect of the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, which may warrant interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 25, 2008 JUDGE jt