Jammu CAT Orders Retired Engineer’s 2006 In-Charge Promotion Regularised, As No Chargesheet Was Filed When Juniors Were Regularised

The applicant, a retired Power Development Department officer, was placed as In-charge Superintending Engineer in 2006 and superannuated on 31 March 2007.

The Department recommended regularisation of his promotion with effect from 1 October 2006, but later regularised the promotions of junior officers while excluding him because an FIR registered against him in 2013 was pending.

No charge-sheet or challan had been filed when the juniors’ promotions were regularised.

The applicant sought regularisation from the same date and consequential benefits

1. Whether the respondents could exclude the applicant from consideration for regularisation of his In-charge promotion as Superintending Engineer solely because an FIR was pending, when no charge-sheet or challan had been filed

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to regularisation from 1 October 2006 and consequential service and pensionary benefits

The Tribunal relied on Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, which holds that promotion cannot be withheld merely because proceedings are pending; for that purpose, the relevant proceedings must have reached the stage of issuance of a charge memorandum or filing of a charge-sheet.

It also relied on Union of India v. Anil Kumar Sarkar, Civil Appeal No. 2537 of 2013, and Union of India v. Sangam Keshari Nayak, Civil Appeal No. 3691 of 2005, as reaffirming that registration of an FIR alone does not bar consideration for promotion or regularisation.

The Tribunal further treated exclusion of the applicant, while granting the benefit to his juniors, as arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution

The respondents had recommended the applicant for regularisation from 1 October 2006 and subsequently regularised the promotions of his junior colleagues.

The only stated reason for excluding him was the pending FIR, registered in 2013—after his retirement—and no charge-sheet had been filed when the juniors’ cases were decided.

Applying the cited Supreme Court authorities, the Tribunal held that an FIR and ongoing investigation, without the requisite formal charge-sheet or charge memorandum, could not justify withholding consideration or deferring regularisation indefinitely.

The differential treatment was therefore arbitrary and discriminatory

It directed the respondents to regularise the applicant’s In-charge promotion as Superintending Engineer with effect from 1 October 2006, without insisting on vigilance clearance.

It further directed the Department to pay the consequential salary arrears and recommend revised pension fixation and issuance of a fresh Pension Payment Order.

The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order; no order as to costs was made