TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued that a punishment order had been imposed on 15.02.2017. Petitioners is not aware as to whether the case of the employee for promotion had been considered or not - It is, thus, apparent that the respondent-employee has also lost interest in the litigation as none has put in appearance, as he has taken voluntary retirement. The department as such proceed in a manner which is unbecoming of a department and rather the whole litigation has been continued to deprive a person of his right of consideration for promotion. However, the respondent-employee is not present - Thus, we do not wish to further comment upon the fact as to how he has been prejudiced by his own officers. Even otherwise, it is apparent that the order of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich punishment of withholding of three increments of pay with cumulative effect had been imposed and the same had been set aside on 12.11.2010 (Annexure A-6) in OA No.590-PB of 2009 wherein respondents had been given liberty to proceed afresh in the matter. Challenge had been raised before this Court in CWP No.24300 of 2011 Union of India and others Vs. Basant Kumar and another , which was dismissed on 23.12.2011 (Annexure A-7). In the meantime, the respondents had conducted DPC for promotion to the post of Senior Tax Assistants for the year 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 on 03.05.2012, vide which the employee had been promoted on 11.05.2012. For the subsequent promotion as Income Tax Inspectors for the recruitment year 2013-2014 juni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A perusal of the file would also go on to show that an execution application had also been filed. This fact had also been noticed by the learned Tribunal, which would be clear from the order dated 20.04.2017, which reads as under:- 1. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that O.A was allowed vide order dated 17.12.2015 with a positive direction by this Tribunal to consider his case for promotion pending departmental proceeding within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. He submitted that the respondents instead of complying with the directions of this court or getting any order from the Hon'ble High Court in their favour, the authorities took almost more than 1 1/2 years to dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time to do the needful by filing an affidavit and are also directed to bring the relevant record on the next date of hearing. 5. List on 15.05.2017. Mr. Gosain is not aware as to whether the case of the employee for promotion had been considered or not. It is, thus, apparent that the respondent-employee has also lost interest in the litigation as none has put in appearance, as he has taken voluntary retirement. We are of the considered opinion that the department as such proceed in a manner which is unbecoming of a department and rather the whole litigation has been continued to deprive a person of his right of consideration for promotion. However, the respondent-employee is not present. Thus, we do not wish to further comment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
