Delhi High Court
Savitur Prasad vs Uoi & Ors. on 29 October, 2018
$~22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 29th October, 2018
+ CRL.A. 1094/2018
SAVITUR PRASAD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate
with Ms. Garima Sharma, Adv.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC for
R-1.
Mr. Naresh K. Adv. for R-2 to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, then working as Additional Controller General
of Defence Accounts (Addl. CGDA) had approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by original application (no.707/17)
raising certain grievances vis-à-vis his claim for being considered for
promotion to the post of Controller General of Defence Accounts
(CGDA). It appears that the claim of the petitioner before the CAT
was based on standing in terms of merit. His petition was resisted,
inter alia, by a short reply (on affidavit) of the fourth respondent, he
being an Under Secretary in Union Public Service Commission
(UPSC). In the said affidavit, it was, inter alia, indicated that an
eligibility list of five officers had been furnished by the department
which did not include the petitioner. On the basis of information
gathered under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it was claimed by
the petitioner that the eligibility list based on zone of consideration
would include seven names, he being at the seventh position, this
being reflected in a communication dated 28.09.2016 from the
Ministry of Defence (Finance) addressed to Secretary, UPSC.
2. Based on the above, the petitioner had filed an application
seeking criminal action to be initiated under Section 340 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC), in his submission, offences
punishable under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) having been committed. The said application was
dismissed by CAT, by its order dated 11.07.2018, a challenge whereto
is brought by the present criminal appeal presented under Section 341
Cr. PC.
3. At the hearing, it was brought out by the counsel for the
petitioner himself that his main petition - OA 707/2017 seeking reliefs
in the nature of quashing of the exercise conducted by Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) and the consequences flowing from
decisions taken by it and for a review DPC to be held, was dismissed
by CAT by its judgment dated 22.03.2018. Though the petitioner
would make an argument questioning the correctness of some of the
conclusions reached in the said decision of CAT, it was conceded that
no appeal or any other remedy including in the nature of review has
been sought or pursued by the petitioner against the order dated
22.03.2018.
4. The CAT, by its order dated 11.07.2018, has observed that no
finding has been reached that the submissions made in the counter
affidavit were false and for this reason the prayer under Section 340
Cr. PC has been declined.
5. The grievance of the petitioner primarily is that the decision has
been rendered by CAT on his application under Section 340 Cr. PC
without an inquiry. The submission is devoid of substance. It is not
mandatory for the concerned forum dealing with a prayer under
Section 340 Cr. PC to compulsorily hold an inquiry. It can decline to
take any action on such an application if it does not find it expedient to
otherwise do so including for such reasons as have impelled CAT to
reject the application of the petitioner.
6. In the given facts and circumstances where the claim of the
petitioner for being considered for promotion to the next level was
based on the principle of merit-cum-seniority, rather than he being
senior to those (who were considered to be) within the zone of
consideration, he having failed to persuade CAT on the main reliefs,
the view taken by the CAT cannot be faulted.
7. The petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 29, 2018
yg
