K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
1. Through the medium of this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the  Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following
main relief:-
“(i) The order dated 19-01-2017 (A-1) and Minutes of Screening Committee dated 1-12-2016 (A-2) may be quashed as it is discriminatory and in
the violation of the Rules of 2007 and Guidelines issued by the Government of India and the case of applicant may also be considered for promotion
along with other batch mates as he fulfils all the necessary eligibility criteria and is having no negative qualifications.â€
2. The factual matrix of the case, as noticed from the records, is as under:-
2.1 The applicant belongs to 1985 batch of IAS of Rajasthan cadre. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 20.05.1992 on initiation of
disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short “Rules 1969â€). A charge memo was
issued to him on 25.06.1992, which the applicant challenged before the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.1159/1992. The Jaipur Bench, vide its
order dated 04.02.1993, ordered for his reinstatement in service on 04.05.1993.
The departmental enquiry (DE) proceedings, however, were concluded on 28.01.1999 wherein the disciplinary authority issued aÂ
warning to the applicant “be more careful in futureâ€. He, however, was fully exonerated of the charge vide order 01.11.2001 passed by the
competent authority. 2.2 On 09.06.2004, two FIR Nos.109.2004 & 110/2004 came to be registered against the applicant under
Sections 7, 8, 13 (1) (a), 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of IPC for taking huge amount of money
as bribe.
2.3 The applicant was arrested on 11.06.2004 and was kept in police custody till 21.06.2004. He was placed under suspension on 12.06.2004.
However, he challenged his suspension before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in DB CWP No.4202/2008. The High Court ordered for his
reinstatement and accordingly, he was reinstated vide order dated 15.01.2010.
2.4 Vide O.M. dated 08.04.2011, another DE proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Rule 8 of the Rules 1969 and on the basis of the
inquiry report, he was again issued a warning “be more careful in future†vide order dated 28.05.2014.
2.5 During the period of his suspension mentioned in paragraph 2.3 (supra), apparently, the applicant was not considered for promotion to Higher
Administrative Grade (HAG), also called as Above Super Time Scale, in the pay scale of `67000-79000. Following his reinstatement, vide order dated
19.03.2015 (p.18), he was promoted to the HAG with effect from the date of his reinstatement, i.e., 15.01.2010, which was subsequently modified
vide order dated 30.03.2015, whereby the promotion to HAG was made effective from 01.01.2010.
2.6 The Screening Committee for adjudging the suitability of IAS officers of Rajasthan cadre belonging to 1984 & 1985 batches for promotion to the
Chief Secretary grade (Apex Scale) (`80,000/- fixed) met on 01.12.2016, in which it considered as many as 13 officers from these two batches. It,
however, did not find 3 of them fit for promotion, including the applicant. The minutes of the Screening Committee are at pp.16 & 17. On the basis of
the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the State Government of Rajasthan, vide its order dated 19.01.2017 (p.15-A), promoted 3 batch
mates of the applicant, namely, Mr. Rajeev Swaroop, Mr. J C Mohanti and Mr. Sudarshan Sethi.
2.7 Vide another order dated 19.01.2017 (p.14), the State Government also granted promotion to another 4 batch mates of the applicant, who were
then on deputation with Central Government, to the Apex Scale (`80,000/-fixed) on proforma basis w.e.f. 01.01.2017. These officers are:
i) Mr. B N Sharma
ii) Mrs. Usha Sharma
iii) Mrs. Kiran Soni Gupta
iv) Dr. Madhukar Gupta
Aggrieved by the two orders dated 19.01.2017 and the minutes of the Screening Committee of 01.12.2016 granting promotion to his batch mates to the
Apex Scale (`80000/- fixed) and not granting that promotion to him, the applicant has filed the instant O.A. praying for the relief, as indicated in
paragraph (1) above.
3. In support of the relief claimed, the applicant has pleaded the following grounds:-
(a) The orders dated 19.01.2017 of State Government of Rajasthan are non-speaking ones and they do not indicate as to the ground for denial of
promotion to the applicant to the Apex Scale of Chief Secretary.
(b) The Screening Committee, which met on 01.12.2016, failed to note that the sealed cover procedure could be adopted only in cases of officers
facing disciplinary inquiry or against whom criminal charges have been framed. However, in the applicant’s case, although the two FIRs (FIR
Nos.109.2004 & 110/2004) were registered in the year 2004 and prosecution sanction was also granted but charges were never framed in any court
of law.
(c) In the context of applicant, the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), Government of India, vide its letter dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure A-
5), has issued the following clarifications:-
“Subject: Sealed Cover procedure in respect of Shri R.S. Srivastava, IAS-regarding
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No.F.5(10)/Pers/A-I/2014 dated the 17th November, 2014 on the above mentioned subject and to say that the
matter has been examined in consultation with Department of Legal Affairs.
2. It is hereby clarified that the judgment dated 12.04.1993 pronounced in the case of UOI Vs. Kewal Kumar (Two Judge Bench) cannot be adopted
as Suppression to the judgment dated 27.08.1991 in K.V. Janakiraman (Three Judge Bench) in respect of sealed cover procedure for IAS officers.
Mere issue of sanction for prosecution is a pre-requisite for launching of prosecution, but the prosecution is launched only after the charges have been
framed.
3. Government of Rajasthan is requested to decide the issue in the light of this department’s OM. No.22011/4/91-Estt. (A) dated the 14th
September, 1992 (cop0y enclosed).â€
4. Pursuant to the notices issued, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 wherein the details of DE proceedings and registration of FIRs
under Sections 7, 8, 13 (1) (a), 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of IPC have been given.
5. During the pendency of the O.A., the applicant filed M.A. No.852/2018, in which he brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the State Government
has issued orders for promotion of IAS officers of 1986 & 1987 batches to the Apex Scale of Chief Secretary on 31.12.2017, but in his case no
promotion order has been issued despite the recommendations of the Screening Committee, albeit he belongs to 1985 batch of IAS.
6. The applicant has filed yet another M.A. No.1378/2018, in which, inter alia, he has brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the respondents have
promoted the applicant to the Apex Scale of Chief Secretary vide order dated 23.02.2018; a copy of which has also been enclosed with the said M.A.
He has prayed for a direction to the respondents that he should be promoted w.e.f. 01.01.2017 when his batch mates were promoted vide order dated
19.01.2017.
7. Heard the applicant as party in person and Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ankit Raj and Mr. Indra Bhaskar,
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
8. The main prayer of the applicant in the O.A. is for a direction to respondent No.2 to promote him to the Apex Scale of Chief Secretary. This prayer
has since been granted by respondent No.2 itself by issuing order dated 23.02.2018. Since the applicant belongs to 1985 batch, there is no reason as to
why the effect of the promotion should not be antedated to the date when his batch mates (1985 batch) were promoted, i.e., 01.01.2017. His
status/eligibility for such promotion, at the time when the Screening Committee had met on 01.12.2016 to consider promotion of 1984 & 1985 batches
of IAS of Rajasthan cadre to the Apex Scale, has not changed when the promotion order dated 23.02.2018 was issued by respondent No.2 promoting
him to the Apex Scale. Hence, we find merit in the contention of the applicant that his promotion should be antedated to 01.01.2017 when his batch
mates were promoted vide order dated 19.01.2017.
9. In the conspectus, we dispose of this O.A. with a direction to the respondents to antedate the promotion of the applicant to the Apex Scale of Chief
Secretary with effect from 01.01.2017, i.e., the date with effect from which his batch mates (1985 batch) were promoted to such scale vide order
dated 19.01.2017. The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
10. With this, all ancillary Applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
