Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Mandoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
W.P. No. 12304/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 12304 of 2021
Between:-
RAJU MANDORIYA, S/O SHRI ANDRU
MANDORIYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
OFFICE OF DIVISIONAL DY. COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAX,
CHHINDWARA DIVISION, CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.S. JHA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
1. COMMERCIAL TAX, MANTRALAYA VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCIAL TAX, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER
2.
COMMERCIAL TAX, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DIVISIONAL DY. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCIAL TAX, CHHINDWARA DIVISION,
3.
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
MP PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THROUGH IT
4. CHAIRMAN, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND SHRI NIKHIL BHATT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT NO. 2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
W.P. No. 12304/2021
2
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is that the respondents have kept the
recommendation of the DPC in a sealed cover for promotion from the post of
Commercial Tax Officer to the post of Assistant Commissioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding
the post of Commercial Tax Officer w.e.f. 29.11.2007. The petitioner submitted
that while working on the post of Commercial Tax Officer, show cause notice
dated 25.11.2010 was issued to him levelling certain departmental
irregularities. However, the reply to the show cause notice was found to be
satisfactory and, therefore, the case was closed vide order dated 21.07.2011.
Thereafter, another show cause notices dated 11.08.2011 and 23.11.2011 were
issued to the petitioner and the cases thereof were also closed vide order dated
24.12.2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the reason for
keeping any consideration in the sealed cover is that on the date of convening
of the DPC, a charge-sheet for regular departmental enquiry or challan in a
criminal case is pending before the competent Court against the employee. In
the present case, neither any departmental charge-sheet nor any challan was
pending on the date of DPC on 15.02.2012 and merely on the basis of
pendency of show cause notice, the recommendations of the DPC could not
have been kept in sealed cover.
W.P. No. 12304/2021
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman
and Others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 to contend that the sealed cover procedure by
the DPC is required to be adopted only in case the charge-sheet in respect of
the departmental enquiry is issued against the employee concerned or the
challan in the criminal case is filed before any Court of law on the date of
convening of the DPC.
5. In compliance of the order dated 22.03.2022, the respondents have filed
the additional reply on 18.04.2022 in which also the query raised on
22.03.2022 has not been explained as to whether any charge-sheet was filed on
the date of convening of the DPC.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is seen that the DPC was conducted on 15.02.2012 whereas the charge-
sheet was issued on 12.06.2012 which is subsequental to the date of convening
of the DPC, as such the case of the petitioner could not have been kept in a
sealed cover.
8. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
K.V. Jankiraman and Others (supra), this Court has no hesitation to hold that
the respondents have committed an error in keeping the recommendations of
the DPC in a sealed cover when there was no charge-sheet for departmental
enquiry or criminal case pending against the petitioner.
9. In such circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents in
keeping the recommendation of the DPC for promotion of the petitioner to the
W.P. No. 12304/2021
post of Assistant Commissioner in sealed cover is ex facie, arbitrary and illegal.
The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and give effect to the
recommendations of the DPC as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the extend indicated here-in-
above.
11. No order as to costs.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
ashish
Digitally signed by ASHISH
KUMAR LILHARE
Date: 2022.04.26 10:48:53 +05'30'
