Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rajesh Singh vs National Hydro Electric on 5 February, 2025
Author: Puneet Gupta
Bench: Puneet Gupta
Sr. No.02
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Virtual mode)
Pronounced on : 05.02.2025
Case:WP (C) 3915/2019
Rajesh Singh, Aged 46 years, .....Petitioner(s)
S/o Sh. Maryad Singh,
R/o C-8/1102 SRS Residency
Sector-88,
Faridabad (Haryana).
Through: Mr.Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.
Vs
1. National Hydro Electric ..... Respondent(s)
Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC),
Corporate Office,
NHPC Complex, Secotr-33,
Faridabad (Haryana)
Through its Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director.
2. Executive Director,
National Hydro Electric
Power Corporation Ltd.
Regional Office,
Rail Head Complex, Jammu.
Through: Mr. A.P.Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Verma, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner through the medium of the present writ petition seeks
consideration of his case by the respondents for promotion to the post
of Manager (Elect) and also as Senior Manager (Elect) with the
respondent-Corporation from the date his juniors were promoted to
those posts in the year 2011 and 2015 respectively. The petitioner also
seeks consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy General
Manager (Elect).
2. The grievance of the petitioner, in short, is that he is being denied the
promotion to the aforesaid posts only for the reason that the FIR has
been lodged against him and the challan arising out of the same is
pending deposal before the court of law. The pendency of the challan
for the last more than ten years should not come in the way of the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion.
3. The objections to the writ petition have been filed by the respondents
wherein it is submitted that the challan is pending against the accused
before the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Jammu. The petitioner has
been accorded adhoc promotion vide order dated 21.08.2020 from the
post of Assistant Manager (Electrical) to the post of Deputy Manager
(Electrical) w.e.f. 01.04.2011 in terms of Clause 17 of the Policy of the
respondents. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner is
covered by Clause 18 of the Rules whereby the petitioner cannot be
considered for further promotion. In nut-shell, the submission is that
the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the accused do not
warrant further promotion of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Rahul Pant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept away from the zone of
consideration for further promotion due to the pendency of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner. The criminal case may further take
number of years to conclude and for that the petitioner cannot be
blamed and, therefore, is not required to suffer. It is also submitted that
theoffice memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel & Training vide
dated 14.09.1992 does not debar the respondents from considering the
case of the petitioner for further promotion when the criminal
proceedings against the government servant is not concluded within a
period of two years.
5. Mr. A.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has
argued that the petitioner has been given one promotion during the
pendency of the writ petition in terms of the Rules applicable to the
employees of the respondent-Corporation. The Rules envisage that
further promotion cannot be granted in view of the pendency of
criminal proceedings to the petitioner. The office memorandum on
which the petitioner has relied upon shall have no application to the
employees of the Corporation as the Corporation has its own Rules and
Regulations.
6. The controversy in the present case lies in narrow compass. The
petitioner is facing criminal charges and the challan has been produced
in the court of law is not in dispute.The petitioner has been accorded
one promotion vide order dated 21.08.2020 to the post of Deputy
Manager (Electrical) during the pendency of the writ petition w.e.f
01.04.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is as such partially
addressed by the respondents during the pendency of the writ petition.
7. The respondent-Corporation is having its own Rules and Regulations
qua the promotion Policy of the employees working with the
Corporation. The argument of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that the aforesaid office memorandum dated 14.09.1992 shall
apply to the Corporation cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that
the Corporation has its own Policy framed for promotion of the
employees. The Corporation being an independent entity has every
power to frame its Rules and Regulations for its working. The office
memorandum referred to by the petitioner cannot override the Policy
making decision of the respondent-Corporation which is an
independent identity. Having held so, the court is only required to look
into the Rules and Regulations governing the Policy regarding
promotion of the employees of the Corporation. The respondents in
their objections have specifically mentioned of Rule 17 and 18 of the
Promotion Policy made applicable for the Corporation employees. The
respondents have banked upon Rule 17 read with Rule 18.7 of the
Rules in support of their argument and the court finds substance in the
same. As per Rule 18.7 and 18.8, the executive can be granted only one
promotion and is not to be considered for any subsequent promotion
regular or adhoc though he has completed the qualifying service with
reference to the date of his adhoc promotion. He is not to be promoted
unless he is completely exonerated of the charges which are laid
against him. Rule 18.4 and Rule 18.5 also refer to the consequences
where the executive is acquitted in the criminal prosecution on the
merits or on technical grounds. The Rules applicable on the subject do
not entitle the petitioner for the relief as sought for by him in the writ
petition. The Rule may work harsh against the employee due to the
pendency of the criminal proceedings against him more so when the
proceedings do not conclude within a reasonable time for one reason or
another. The Court cannot grant the relief to the petitioner in view of
the specific bar created by the Rules for granting further promotion to
the petitioner in the situation he is presently placed.
8. It may be noticed that the petitioner has not challenged the relevant
Rules which come in the way of the petitioner for consideration of
further promotion. In the absence of challenge to the Rules by the
petitioner in the writ petition qua the claim for promotion, the Court is
not to obliterate the Rules of promotion which may be to the detriment
of the petitioner.
9. In view of the Rules which govern the promotion of the Executive to
which the petitioner belongs to and which debar the petitioner from
further consideration zone of promotion, the Court cannot grant relief
to the petitioner as prayed for in the writ petition.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the respondents
are at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for further promotion
if they intend to do so despite dismissal of the present writ petition.
( Puneet Gupta )
Judge
SRINAGAR:
05.02.2025
Pawan Chopra
Whether the Judgment is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the Judgment is reportable : Yes/No
