1997 JTR(SC) 880
1997 2 AllCJ 1323 ; 1997 2 CLR 437 ; 1997 3 CLT(SC) 33801 ; 1997 6 JT 409 ; 1997 4 LLN 500 ; 1997 4 RSJ 48 ; 1997 5 Scale 8 ; 1997 6 SCC 282 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1447 ; 1997 Supp1 SCR 460 ; 1997 4 SLR 626 ; 1997 3 UPLBEC 1646 ; 1997 6 Supreme 493
1997(6) Supreme 493
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Bir Singh Chauhan -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4614 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20687 of 1996)
Decided on 7-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A.S. Pundir, Advocate.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.114(iii)(g)
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service Law provisions govern the employment matters concerning the appellant's suspension, non-consideration for promotion, and the procedural obligations of the authorities. The Evidence Act, S.114(iii)(g) is relevant as it addresses the evaluation of record when a party fails to produce the record or file a counter, thereby impacting the adjudication on the available material. The interplay of these provisions frames the appellate review of the impugned order.
(B) Key legal principles include the duty of the Government to consider promotion cases on service record, the consequences of non-production of record by the adverse party, and the principle of procedural fairness in departmental proceedings.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, while serving as Executive Engineer, conducted a visual inspection of work executed at Sonepat Drainage Division on April 30, 1989, and submitted a report on May 2, 1989. Following an FIR registered against contractors and officers, the appellant and other staff were suspended in April 1990. Upon reinstatement, the appellant was denied promotion while juniors were promoted, leading to the present appeal by special leave.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondents neither filed a counter nor produced the record. In the absence of any counter or record, the court proceeded on the material on record and held that the appellant is entitled to consideration for promotion under the Rules.
Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to be considered for promotion in view of non-production of record and counter by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court applied the principle that in the absence of a counter and record, the case of the appellant based on the material on record must be accepted, directing the Government to consider his promotion on service record while excluding the inspection report material.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, directing the Government to consider the appellant's case for promotion within four months from the receipt of the order, excluding the material relating to the inspection report.
(A) The Service Law provisions govern the employment matters concerning the appellant's suspension, non-consideration for promotion, and the procedural obligations of the authorities. The Evidence Act, S.114(iii)(g) is relevant as it addresses the evaluation of record when a party fails to produce the record or file a counter, thereby impacting the adjudication on the available material. The interplay of these provisions frames the appellate review of the impugned order.
(B) Key legal principles include the duty of the Government to consider promotion cases on service record, the consequences of non-production of record by the adverse party, and the principle of procedural fairness in departmental proceedings.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, while serving as Executive Engineer, conducted a visual inspection of work executed at Sonepat Drainage Division on April 30, 1989, and submitted a report on May 2, 1989. Following an FIR registered against contractors and officers, the appellant and other staff were suspended in April 1990. Upon reinstatement, the appellant was denied promotion while juniors were promoted, leading to the present appeal by special leave.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondents neither filed a counter nor produced the record. In the absence of any counter or record, the court proceeded on the material on record and held that the appellant is entitled to consideration for promotion under the Rules.
Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to be considered for promotion in view of non-production of record and counter by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court applied the principle that in the absence of a counter and record, the case of the appellant based on the material on record must be accepted, directing the Government to consider his promotion on service record while excluding the inspection report material.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, directing the Government to consider the appellant's case for promotion within four months from the receipt of the order, excluding the material relating to the inspection report.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent was directed to produce the record and to file the counter; but neither counter has been filed nor the record has been produced. In these circumstances, we are constrained to proceed on the basis of the material on record.
3. The appellant, while he was working as Executive Engineer, was asked by the Superintending Engineer to carry out the visual inspection of the work executed at Sonepat Drainage Division on April 30, 1989. He carried on the same on May 2, 1989 and submitted the report. Subsequently, a case was registered against the contractors and other employees. On the basis of subsequent report submitted by Shri O.P. Vij, an FIR was registered on August 10, 1989 against the officers connected with the job. Thereafter, the entire staff comprising of 95 persons in Karnal Drainage Circle, was put under suspension in April 1990. On account thereof, the appellant was also kept under suspension for giving the report of visual inspection viz-a-vis the execution of the work. After his reinstatement, he was due for promotion but the same was not given, while his juniors were promoted. Consequently, he challenged his non-consideration for promotion by way of writ petition which has been dismissed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. We wanted to examine the record to ascertain whether there is any substantial case against the appellant. The respondents have neither filed counter nor produced the record. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to accept the case of the appellant that he is entitled to be considered for promotion under the Rules. We direct the Government to consider his case for promotion on the basis of his service record within four months from the receipt of this order. While doing so, the Government will exclude the material relating to his inspection report.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Appeal accordingly allowed.
*********