IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.624 of 2001. Judgment Reserved on: 1.8.2008. Date of decision: 08.08.2008. C.K. Prashad ..Petitioner Versus Union of India & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Ajay Vaidya vice Mr.Lalit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.Ravinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions that the petitioner be allowed the benefit of seniority and pay fixation in the cadre of Executive Engineer(C) and the arrears of pay by granting him notional benefit of increments etc. The case pleaded by the petitioner is that while he was posted in Tripura, he is alleged to have committed some irregularities while commanding 114 Road construction Company under Headquarter 753, TF Project, Pushpak during October, 1986 to March, 1990. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 He was charge-sheeted and after inquiry, the Union Public Service Commission vide Annexure P-1 directed that the ends of justice would be met if the pay of the petitioner herein is reduced by two stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect with the stipulation that he will earn increment during the period of reduction. This penalty imposed vide Annexure P-2 was: “6. AND WHEREAS the Union Public Service Commission, vide their letter No.F.3/221/98-SI, dated 11.6.1999 (copy enclosed) have advised imposition of the major penalty that the pay of Shri C.K. Prasad be reduced by two stages for a period of 1 year without cumulative effect, with the stipulation that he will earn increment during the period of reduction. 7. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 15(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, and after careful consideration of the Inquiry Report, the President hereby orders that the pay of Shri C.K. Prasad be reduced by two stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect, with the stipulation that he will earn the increment during the period of reduction. Shri Prasad is presently drawing a pay of Rs.9,375/- in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13,500. After 3 reduction of two stages he will draw a salary of Rs.8,825/- with immediate effect for a period of 1 year.” The grievance of the petitioner is that no order with regard to restoring his seniority was passed by the respondent. The petitioner pleads that in the seniority list of Executive Engineer(C) the name of the petitioner should have appeared at Sr.No.40 in place of Shri J.S. Dagla i.e. below Sh.K.S. Mann whose name appeared at Sr.No.39. This having not been done, he claims that he is entitled to the seniority as averred. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is submitted that sealed cover procedure was followed in the case of the petitioner and he was deemed to have been superseded in the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 20.3.1995, wherein this procedure was adopted. According to the respondents, the sealed cover was not opened and acted upon and the petitioner was considered at the subsequent Departmental Promotion Committee held on 20.7.2000 for the vacancy of the year 1998-1999 and was promoted as such w.e.f. 1.8.2000. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn my attention to the guidelines 4 of Departmental Promotion Committee issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India on 10th April, 1989. He has in particular laid emphasis on clauses, 17.6.1 and 17.6.2, which read:- “17.6.1. Sealed cover cases – Action after completion of disciplinary / criminal prosecution: If the proceedings of a DPC for promotion contain findings in a sealed cover, on the conclusion of the disciplinary case / criminal prosecution, the sealed cover or covers shall be opened. In case the Government servant is completely exonerated, the due date of his promotion will be determined with reference to the position assigned to him in the findings kept in the sealed cover/covers and with reference to the date of promotion of his next junior on the basis of such position. The Government servant may be promoted, if necessary, by reverting the junior- most officiating person. He may be promoted nationally with reference to the date of promotion of his junior but he will not be allowed any arrears of pay for the period preceding the date of actual promotion. 17.6.2. Six monthly Review of sealed cover cases: If any penalty is imposed on the Government as a result 5 of the disciplinary proceedings or if he is guilty in the criminal prosecution against him, the findings of the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon. His case for promotion may be considered by the next DPC in the normal course and having regard to the penalty imposed on him.” No instructions contrary to clause 17.6.2, which provides that if any penalty is imposed on a government servant as a result of disciplinary proceedings then his case for promotion may be considered by the next Departmental Promotion Committee in the ordinary course and having regard to the penalty imposed have been brought to my notice. There is no material placed on the record contrary to these instructions. The vires of these instructions / rules have not been challenged. The instructions are clear that in case punishment is imposed irrespective of whether it is a major or minor penalty, the case for promotion is to be considered in the next Departmental Promotion Committee. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. August 8, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.