9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the benefit of upgradation is assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) by undertaking an exercise, akin to the one for promotion. The DPC which met on 21.12.2011 found the petitioner eligible for being extended the benefit of third upgradation. Before an order extending the benefit of upgradation came to be passed by the appointing authority, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 27.12.2011 framing certain charges referable to his functioning in the year 2002 at Sadasivapet. Taking the same into account, the respondents did not extend the benefit of upgradation. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1457 of 2012 before the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal feeling aggrieved by the action of the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ension of the benefit. He contends that the recommendation of the DPC by itself does not confer any right. It is also his case that the fact situation in the present case is akin to the one for which sealed cover procedure can be adopted. On account of the length of service rendered by the petitioner, he became eligible to be considered for extension of the third upgradation. The appointing authority has also forwarded the case of the petitioner to the DPC and the latter in turn found him to be eligible. The subsequent issuance of charge sheet against the petitioner was treated as the basis to deny him the benefit of upgradation. The case on hand presents a typical situation, which one rarely comes across. Had the charge sheet been issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence by the time the DPC met, the petitioner cannot be said to have derived or acquired any right, on the sole basis that DPC cleared his case. We are of the view that since the case is almost at twilight stage, viz., between the clearance by DPC and the issuance of consequential orders by the appointing authority, no harm would be done either to the petitioner or to the respondents, if the sealed cover procedure is adopted in this case also. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the assessment of the petitioner by the DPC shall be treated as valid, but kept in a suspended animation, till the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are concluded. In case, the charges against the petitioner are held not proved, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
