Delhi High Court
K.L. Rakesh vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam ... on 7 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: 132 (2006) DLT 636
Author: J Malik
Bench: J Malik
JUDGMENT
J.M. Malik, J.
1. Through this writ filed in the nature of certiorari, the petitioner has called into question order dated 15.4.2006, wherein the petitioner, who, was officiating in the cadre of STS of ITS Group A in local arrangement was reverted to his original post of Senior Divisional Engineer (SDE) with immediate effect. He was, however, directed to look after the work of Divisional Engineer, (DE (OD) KKD) without any extra remunerations till further arrangement. Initially, the petitioner joined the services on 24.12.1974 as Engineer Supervisor in Indian Post and Telegraph Department. The said post was re-designated as Junior Engineer against the post of Junior Telecom Officer. The petitioner was promoted from the post of Junior Telecom Officer to the post of Senior Divisional Engineer on 24.12.1990. He was again promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer vide order dated 8.1.2002. On 30.3.2006, 48 officers were promoted from the post of Senior Divisional Engineer to the post of Divisional Engineer. Again, 200 junior officers to the petitioner are working against the post of Divisional Engineer with full remunerations.
2. In its counter affidavit the respondent has explained that the petitioner was working on local officiating basis and he was given local officiating promotion for a limited period of 180 days. Consequently, the reversion to the original post is neither illegal nor unjust nor arbitrary. The petitioner was issued a chargesheet under Rule 27 of M.T.N.L. CDA Rules and as such it was necessary to revert the petitioner to his substantive cadre.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the respondent reiterated the above said stand. He defended the reversion order on the ground that serious charges have been levelled against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of this Court in case Ram Prasad v. M.T.N.L. and Ors. in WP(C) 2766/2004 and CM 2540/2004, the relevant part runs as follows:
Government of India guidelines are clear on the issue. As per the guidelines, appointment made against short term vacancies or on ad-hoc or officiating basis for a period of less than an year would permit the employer to revert the employee to his substantive post pending disciplinary proceedings. If, however, the officiating or ad-hoc promotion is for more than one year, pendency of disciplinary proceedings would not be held against the employee, in that, employee need not be reverted to the post held by him.
Since the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner only on the ground that he is facing a disciplinary enquiry, the order cannot stand legal scrutiny. The impugned order dated 20.2.2004 is quashed. Directions are issued to the respondent to restore status quo ante which existed prior to the order dated 20.2.2004 being passed. No costs.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not argue that there is any change in the above said guidelines or position. I accordingly allow this petition. The impugned order dated 15.4.2006 is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to restore status quo ante which existed prior to the order dated 15.4.2006.
