Denial of promotion - CAT Directs to promote officer to Rank of Deputy/Joint /Additional Commissioner with consequential benefits
THE applicant was initially recruited as Customs Appraiser (Group 'B') as a direct recruit on 14.7.1986 through UPSC in the Madras Customs House. In 1997, some of her juniors in the seniority list were promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Group 'A') ignoring her claim on the ground that she was not found fit for promotion. Aggrieved by the above, the applicant filed OA.1068/97 before CAT wherein, this Tribunal vide order dated 30.10.1998 directed the Government to constitute a DPC for considering her case for promotion to Group 'A' post within three months. Against the above said order of CAT, the respondents preferred an appeal in WP.No.8206/1999 before the High Court of Madras, wherein, the High Court vide interim order dated 14.10.1999 directed the Government to constitute a review DPC and consider her case for promotion on or before 31.1.2000 subject to the result of the WP. When the said direction of the High Court was not implemented, the applicant preferred Contempt Application in CA.274/2000, whereupon, the respondents promoted the applicant vide order dated 19.6.2000 to the post of Assistant Commissioner with effect from the date her juniors were so promoted on 8.9.1997. On the above said basis, the WP.8206/1999 was dismissed on 10.1.2008. The applicant joined the promotional post of Assistant Commissioner on 20.6.2000.
Thereafter again the officer was not promoted further as the officer is still not clear from the vigilance angle, the recommendations of the earlier DPCs kept in 'sealed cover' cannot be opened and acted upon. According to the respondents, the reason for not promoting the applicant as per the impugned order is that since the applicant was not promoted to the grade of Deputy Commissioner, her promotion to the grade of Joint Commissioner/Additional Commissioner also could not be considered.
The CAT while disposing of the OA filed by the officer held,“We are not able to understand what prevented the respondents to promote the applicant to the cadre of Deputy Commissioner at the relevant point of time when her juniors were promoted during 1997. There seems to be disciplinary proceedings initiated and a charge memo was given on the applicant on 12.2.2004 was continuing till 2011. The respondents have not explained with substantiating material to justify the extraordinary delay in initiating and proceeding with the departmental enquiries also. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the applicant in the grade of Assistant Commissioner and take appropriate and speedy steps to promote the applicant to the grade of Deputy Commissioner on par with her junior and further promote her to the grade of Joint Commissioner and Additional Commissioner with all consequential benefits, positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.