Dineshkumar Dalpatbhai Sindhav vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's reliance on the Shiv Kumar Sharma case was unfounded. In the present case, the departmental enquiry was pending when the promotion process commenced, leading to the petitioner's case being kept in abeyance. Unlike the Shiv Kumar Sharma case where an employee who completed probation satisfactorily was arbitrarily placed below juniors, here the delay in promotion was a direct consequence of the pending enquiry. The Court noted that the issue of batch mates 'stealing a march' was not pleaded before the Tribunal. Furthermore, referencing Ram Ashish Dixit, the Court stated that if promotion is not effected based on misconduct which forms part of the service record and is considered for suitability, then non-granting of promotion cannot be considered a punishment. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's confirmation of the findings and punishment, finding no double jeopardy. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Dinesh D. Sindhav, a former Inspector at CGST, Ahmedabad, challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that upheld a disciplinary action. The disciplinary action, initiated following a search on factory premises in October 2004 which revealed discrepancies in shipping bills and stuffed goods, resulted in a charge memo for gross misconduct, negligence, failure to maintain integrity, and acting unbecoming of a government servant. The disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty of withdrawing increments for two years without cumulative effect. This was upheld by the Chief Commissioner and subsequently by the CAT. The petitioner's writ petition before the High Court challenged the CAT's decision, primarily on the grounds of double jeopardy due to non-promotion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the imposition of a minor penalty of withdrawing increments without cumulative effect, coupled with the denial of promotion to the petitioner, amounts to double jeopardy, contravening Rule 3(1)(ii), (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that although the punishment was limited to withdrawing increments without cumulative effect, the consequence of not being promoted along with his batch mates and being placed lower in seniority constituted a second punishment, leading to double jeopardy. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh and Others. Revenue's argument: The respondent argued that the issue of double jeopardy was not raised before the Tribunal and was being raised for the first time. They contended that the petitioner's promotion was withheld because a departmental enquiry was pending, and his case was kept in a sealed cover. They further argued that the consequences of the imposed penalty must follow and cited Supreme Court decisions in State of T.N. v. Thiru K.S. Murugesan and Others, L. Rajaiah v. Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, Hyderabad and Others, Collector of Thanjavur Distt. And Others v. S. Rajagopalan and Others, and Ram Ashish Dixit v. Chairman, Purvanchal Gramin Bank Limited and Another.