Lpa No. 1284 of 2024 · Punjab Arh Chandigarh Njab And Haryana High Court · 2025

Order

“20. In the light of above discu discussion and findings, the question of promotion in subseque equent years has become irrelevant, nevertheless, it is noticed iced that the petitioner was considered in subsequent years i.e i.e. 2019 and2020. The promoting authority considered his his case along with other candidates but did not select him. T m. The respondent has not made promotions on the basis of senio seniority but on the basis of merit/performance. The petitioner failed to compete with others. This Court cannot substitute itute opinion of promoting authority. It was subjective opinion ion of promoting authority which was based upon past record and and viva voce. Thus, claim MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) of the petitioner qua decision of p of promoting authority in subsequent years is hereby rejected.

21. In the wake of above discu iscussion and findings, it is hereby held that petitioner is entitl ntitled to promotion w.e.f.

17.12.2017. He shall not been titled 17 itled to arrears but for all other service benefits, his date o e of promotion as Chief Manager would be 17.12.2017.” M

2. Brief fac ief facts which need to be noticed for l are ed for adjudication of this appeal are that the o t the original writ petitioner (responde spondent herein) had preferred a writ before th fore this Court wherein he made se de several prayers which included quashing ashing of the appellant’s action in rev in reverting the writ petitioner vide order da der dated 02.08.2018 and rejecting h cting his appeal thereto vide order dated 04 ted 04.10.2019 whereby the petitione st of etitioner’s promotion to the post of SMGS- -IV with effect from 14.08.2017 w 017 was declared as void ab initio.

3. Learned arned counsel for the writ petition etitioner submits that he had also challenge allenged the enquiry report; the puni e punishment orders passed by the disciplin ciplinary authority; and the orders w ers whereby the appeal and review were reje re rejected and the punishment of stop or 30 of stopping of two increments for 30 months w nths without cumulative effect was u was upheld. The petitioner had also prayed th ayed that he should be promoted on the on the post of SMGS-IV with effect from 17. m 17.12.2017, instead of 14.08.2017 nd to .2017 as originally promoted, and to release th ease the salary for the post of Chief M e the hief Manager (SMGS-IV), since the currency rrency of the aforesaid punishment end ent ended on 16.12.2017.

4. A compl complaint had been filed on 14.06.2 4.06.2014 by one female Assistant Manager anager, State Bank of Patiala alleging t the leging sexual harassment against the petitione titioner who was working with the S l the the State Bank of Patiala, till the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) State Ban Bank of Patiala was merged with th

017. with the State Bank of India in 2017. On the b the basis of the alleged complaint, en aint, enquiry was conducted in terms of Sexua Sexual Harassment of Women at Work t Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redr d Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter re fter referred as ‘Sexual Harassment Act, 201 t, 2013’). The Committee formed und ed under the Act held the petitioner guilty of ilty of the charges and proposed stric iour. d strict action for his misbehaviour. Accordin cordingly, a charge-sheet was issued t 014, sued to the petitioner on 25.11.2014, and the d the petitioner was ultimately punis punished while working as Branch Manager anager on 17.06.2015 whereby two in for a two increments were reduced for a period of riod of 30 months without cumulative ulative effect. Appeal was preferred against ainst the punishment order dated 1 ated 17.06.2015. However, it was rejected v ected vide order dated 01.03.2016.

5. After the ter the merger of both the banks, S anks, State Bank of India initiated promotio omotion process, and the petitione titioner was called for interview whereaft ereafter he was promoted with effe h effect from 14.08.2017 as Chief Manager anager (SMGS-IV). Show cause notic e notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.04

09.04.2018 alleging that he had be s the ad been wrongly promoted as the punishme nishment awarded to him was in cur in currency as on the day, and the currency rrency of punishment of stopping of r 30 ing of two increments was for 30 months a nths and ended only on 16.12.2017. T 7. The petitioner was reverted and relieved ieved from his post on 02.08.20 .08.2018, and the petitioner was transferre nsferred to office at Panipat, and there

019. d thereafter to Karnal on 24.06.2019. It is stat is stated that the petitioner had bee d been reverted before taking any decision cision on the reply filed by him to the to the show cause notice, and finally MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) he was was conveyed vide letter dated 04 t his ted 04.10.2019 informing that his promotio omotion as SMGS-IV with effect from itio. t from 14.08.2017 was void ab initio. The petit e petitioner was further ignored for pr for promotion against the vacancies of 2018 2018 and 2019, and persons junior to nior to him were promoted. The writ petition w tition was therefore filed before this Co this Court.

6. The cont contentions of the petitioner were c e were considered by the Single Judge who obse o observed that a person may not be od of be promoted during the period of penalty, nalty, however, it is unjustified to t be ed to conclude that he cannot be considere nsidered at all. The Single Judge theref therefore passed the order supra.

7. Learned arned counsel appearing for the app t the he appellant/Bank submits that the Rules of les of promotion are governed by va f the by various policy decisions of the SBI, and I, and as per the Debarment Policy, olicy, the view taken by the Single Judge w dge was not correct, and the peti e petitioner could not have been considere nsidered for promotion.

8. He has has invited attention of this Court India Court to the State Bank of India (Officers fficers) Service Regulations, 1992, a 7(1), 992, and as per Regulation 17(1), promotio omotion policies were framed and pr e on and promotions were to be done on the basis basis of selection and were therefo , and herefore required to be earned, and merely on account of seniority, a person person could not claim an automatic promotio omotion. The respondent/writ peti t petitioner was considered for promotio omotion for subsequent years namely 2 21 mely 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 but rema t remained unsuccessful.

9. As regar regards the order passed by the Singl on to Single Judge granting promotion to the respo respondent with effect from 17.12.2 a 17.12.2017, it was submitted that a MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) person is rson is required to be considered fo ible. red for promotion if he is eligible. Counsel unsel has invited attention to the De it is the Debarment Policy wherein it is provided ovided not to be considered during the ng the period of penalty.

10. He furth e further took this Court to the Promo Promotion Policy for General Cadre Officers, ficers, Promotions to SMGS-IV and d the and SMGS-V, which provided the date of e te of eligibility to be 1st April of the re d the relevant promotion year, and the provision ovision clearly laid down that the vari ll be e various eligibility criteria shall be determin termined as on that day for the conce at as concerned year. He submits that as per claus r clause 5(a), (b), (c), (d), the eligibilit igibility with regard to the concerned candidate ndidate has to be examined as on 1st Ap April of that concerned year.

11. He there e therefore submits that as on 1st of A of April, 2017, while considering the case case of the petitioner for promotion y of otion for 2017-18, the currency of punishme nishment would come in way. Howev However, as the petitioner belonged to State B State Bank of Patiala and his service r t that rvice record was not available at that relevant evant time, he was directly promoted oted and posted on deputation with the Gove Government of USA. The petition etitioner was erroneously promoted with effe th effect from 14.08.2017, while the p e the punishment of stopping his two incremen rements for 30 months would end onl nd only on 16.12.2017. He therefore submits bmits that as the petitioner did no , the id not possess the eligibility, the incumbe umbent could not have been prom promoted, and the claim of the petitione titioner was required to be rejected.

12. Learned

earned counsel for the appellant furthe further submits that the Single Judge ought n ght not have exercised his powers powers under Article 226 of the Constitut nstitution of India to grant promotio omotion to the respondent. He has MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) invited a ited attention to clause 5(f) of the P f the Promotion Policy for General Cadre Of dre Officers which reflects that the of the officers who are under rigour of punishme nishment on the date of eligibility due as a ity due to imposition of penalty as a result of ult of disciplinary action under the Se the Service Rules will not be eligible to partic participate in the promotion proce e of process. Thus, since the date of eligibility gibility is 1st of April of the concer e the oncerned year, merely because the rigour of our of punishment ended on 16.12.2 d as 6.12.2017, he cannot be treated as eligible f gible for consideration for promotion - otion against the vacancies of 2017-

13. Per co contra, learned counsel appear /writ appearing for the respondent/writ petitione titioner submits that the learned Single d the Single Judge has rightly allowed the claim of im of the petitioner for promotion wi 7 i.e. ion with effect from 17.12.2017 i.e. from the m the day the currency of punishment t the hment ended. It is submitted that the petitione titioner would be entitled for the pos e post which was lying vacant since long, an g, and even though he admits that f the ts that during the currency of the punishme nishment, the petitioner incumbent cou d on ent could not have been promoted on

14.08.20 .08.2017, but the stopping of two incre o increments and punishment thereto ended on ded on 16.12.2017. However, for the e r the entire year, even if the vacancy may have y have occurred, the benefit would be uld be available to him.

14. Learned earned counsel for the respondent furth further supported the order passed by the the Single Judge. He submits th t be its that the petitioner cannot be continuo ntinuously deprived of his promotion o alty. otion on the basis of a minor penalty. The appe e appellant has wrongfully denied his ur of ied his promotion after the rigour of punishme nishment was over. The vacancy was , and cy was lying as on 17.12.2017, and MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) once the ce the rigour was over, he was require equired to be considered. The action of the a the appellant also suffers from ille m illegality as the petitioner was reverted erted even before the reply of the sh the show cause notice. He submits that the t the petitioner has always had outstan outstanding record, but the appellant did not c not consider him for promotion even even for the subsequent years.

15. Learned earned counsel for the appellant has re t has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in urt in Union of India and another v ) 2 her vs. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 75 750, while the counsel for the the respondent/writ petitioner has relied on ied on judgment of Supreme Court Court in Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin min Bank and others vs. Manoj Ku os. j Kumar Chak, Civil Appeal Nos. 2970-297 2975 of 2013 and other conn connected appeals, decided on

09.04.20 .04.2013.

16. We have e have considered the submissions.

17. Regulatio gulation 17(1) of the State Bank Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulatio gulations, 1992 provides as under: “17(1) Promotions to all gra l grades of officers in the Bank shall be made in accordance wi Ba e with the policy laid down by the Central Board or the Executiv cutive Committee from time to time.”

18. The pro he promotion policy framed under the s for er the said Regulations provides for promotio omotion by selection and not by senio hat a seniority alone, which means that a person m rson must possess a clean record o e of ord of service for the purpose of promotio omotion. During the tenure of a min a minor penalty, a person therefore cannot be nnot be granted promotion. MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M)

19. The que e question however arises in the the present case is whether the petitione titioner could be considered for prom es of promotion against the vacancies of the year year 2017-18. As per the Promoti romotion Policy for General Cadre Officers, ficers, Promotions to SMGS-IV and V and SMGS-V, as it existed upto 2017-18 18 is concerned, Annexure R-1 refl nder: 1 reflects at clause 7 and 8 as under: “7. At the time of finalizing th ng the promotions, a list of officers found suitable for promotio motion is to be prepared. However, in respect of the office Ho fficers whose results for promotion cannot be declared immed mediately, the findings are held in a sealed cover and record corded separately, and an indication evidencing that such a cov cover exists is recorded, if the officer is exonerated of the charg charges, the findings of the Promoting Authority held in sealed c Pr ed cover are acted upon. If he/she is found suitable for promoti motion, he/she is promoted thereafter with retrospective effect from t from the date he/she would have been promoted but for the pe e pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him/her against a inst a vacancy in the higher grade that may have arisen in the the meantime. If no such vacancy has arisen, he/she is promot omoted to the higher grade with retrospective effect on a sup supernumerary basis and absorbed against a future vacancy in t in that grade.

8. The procedure stated abov above is followed, mutatis mutandis, in considering the confi onfirmation of an officer against whom disciplinary action is pe is pending or contemplated. (i) Where the departmental p al proceedings have ended with the imposition of a minor penalty nalty, viz., censure, recovery of pecuniary loss to the bank, withhold holding of increment of pay or withholding of promotion, the dec decision of the Promoting Authority in favour of the employee, Au yee, kept in sealed cover, is not to be given effect to. However, in r, in the case of censure, the first sealed cover is not given effect to ct to, but subsequent sealed covers, if any, are opened in chron ronological order and the findings of the Promoting Authority ority acted upon. Officers punished on the conclusion of the d he disciplinary proceedings MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) are not to be considered during the the period of penalty i.e., during the period of rigour. (ii) In the case of imposition tion of major penalties, all sealed covers are rendered infructuous tuous. (iii) Insofar as the confirmation ation of an officer in similar circumstances is concerned, the C e Competent Authority is required to review the case of the co e confirmation immediately after the conclusion of disciplinary ary proceedings and if the findings held in sealed cover are in re in favour of the officer, he/she will be confirmed in the relativ lative grade or scale from a retrospective date.”

20. Thus, as hus, as the punishment of stoppage of age of two increments was imposed vide ord e order dated 17.06.2015 and the sa the said punishment was to operate for a per r a period of 30 months, the increment rements would be restored only after the end o end of period of 30 months i.e. with e with effect from 17.12.2017.

21. Learned earned counsel for the appellant/bank h /bank has further relied on Annexure ‘A’ to the ’ to the Promotion Policy which provid provides as under: “Withholding of increments o nts of pay with or without cumulative effect: The Officer is not eligible consideration for promotion the period his/her increment(s) is/are withheld.”

22. In view view of the policy which was brou s brought into force from the year 2018-19 19 onwards, date of eligibility has ty has also been mentioned to mean that the e t the eligibility criteria shall be determ determined as on 1st of April of the f the relevant evant promotion year. Thus, for 2018 r 2018-19, the date of eligibility has to be exa be examined as on 1st of April, 2018 a t for 2018 and so on and so forth. But for the yea year 2017-18, the aforesaid promotio e no motion policy clause would have no applicati plication. Reading of the promotion or to otion policy as it existed prior to MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) 2018-19 19 reflects that the consideration fo tion for promotion would only occur after the er the rigour of punishment is ove r of is over. Thus, when the rigour of punishme nishment ends on 16.12.2017, since th as on ince the vacancy was available as on

17.12.20 .12.2017, the case of the petitioner wa ed as ner was required to be considered as he becam became wholly eligible on that day. The contention of learned arned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner was not eligible as o le as on 1st of April, 2017, relying on g on the clause of the promotion policy e for policy which has come into force for the year 2018-19 onwards, cannot cannot be accepted as the promotion policy of 2018-19 onwards specifi specifically is prospective and would not apply to 2017-18.

23. The judg e judgment cited at bar would therefo o the therefore have no application to the present c esent case, which has to be examined o ined on the facts of the case alone.

24. Learned earned counsel for the respondent/w d on dent/writ petitioner has relied on judgmen gment of Supreme Court in Rani ani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank an k and others(supra), wherein it was h it was held as under: “36. There is no doubt that p at punishment and adverse service record are relevant to determ termine the minimum merit by the DPC. But to debar a candidat didate, to be considered for promotion, on the basis of punishm nishment or unsatisfactory record would require the necessary pr ry provision in the statutory service Rules. There is no such pro provision under the 1998 Rules. Ru

37. In B.V. Sivaiah (supra), th , this Court laid down the broad contours defining the term “b “bare minimum merit” in the following words: “We thus arrive at th at the conclusion that the criterion of ‘seniority-cum-m merit’ in the matter of MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) promotion postulates hat given the minimum necessary merit requisite efficiency administration, nior, senior, though meritorious, shall have prior riority and a comparative assessment of merit is not req t required to be made. For assessing the minimum necessa essary merit, the competent authority can lay down the mi e minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the e the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is el is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessm essment can be made by assigning marks on the b e basis of appraisal of performance on the basis o is of service record and interview and prescribing the the minimum marks which would entitle a person to be p be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.” From the above, it beco becomes clear determination of the bare minimum cr m criteria is the function of the DPC and cannot be taken-over by r by the management at the time of determining the eligibility of of a candidate under Rule 2(e). 2(e

38. The reliance placed by M y Mr. Dhruv Mehta on the judgment of this court the c e case of Ram Ashish Dixit(supra) is also misconceived. In Di . In the aforesaid case, the officer had been considered for for promotion during the pendency of the departmental pr l proceedings to Middle Management Grade II. However, the M r, the result was kept in a sealed cover. After finalization of of the proceedings, the appellants requested the authority to y to open the sealed cover. He was, however, informed that he c He he can not be promoted in view of the bank Circular dated 28th 8th March, 1998 as he had been punished. Subsequently, again gain his case was to be considered for promotion in Septemb tember, 1999. However, he was denied consideration for prom promotion in view of the conditions contained in Circular date dated 28th March, 1998. It was submitted on behalf of the appella pellants that the punishment imposed upon the staff of the Bank can k can not be treated to be an MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) ineligibility for promotion since the e the eligibility for promotion is prescribed under the RRB Rules, 19 s, 1988. It was submitted on behalf of the bank (respondent therein erein) that since stoppage of increment for 3 years is a punishm ishment imposed upon the appellants, during the period, he he would be undergoing punishment, he could not have been c en considered to be eligible for promotion. Therefore, according t ing to the bank, respondent had been rightly held to be ineligibl igible under Circular dated 28th March, 1998. It was also claime 28 laimed by the bank that the Circular is supplementary in nature an Ci re and can not be said to be in any manner inconsistent and ultra ultra vires of the rules. In answering the rival submissions, this C this Court held as under:- “The criteria for pr promotion from Junior Manager Grade-I to Middle M le Management Grade-II is on the basis of the seniorit iority- cum-merit. Clearly therefore, the fact that the the appellant has been punished for a misconduct, th ct, the same would form a part of his record of service wh e which would be taken into consideration while adjudging ging his suitability on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit erit. If on such assessment of his record of service the app e appellant is not promoted, it cannot be said to be by way way of punishment. It is a non- promotion on account unt of the appellant not reaching a suitable standard ard to be promoted on the basis of the criteria.”

39. We also do not find any me y merit in the submission of Mr. Dhruv Mehta that the Circular No M r No.17 of 2009 dated 30th November, 2009 and Circular dated No ted 12th July, 2010 are to ensure that the individual members bers of the DPC do not recommend for promotion an indi individual officer despite having been punished in the prec preceding 5 years. Such curtailment of the power of the D e DPC would have to be located in the statutory service rules. les. The 1998 Rules do not contain any such provision. The sub submission needs merely to be stated, to be rejected. We also do n do not find any merit in the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) submission of Mr. Mehta that w at without the aforesaid guidelines, an officer, even though, he h, he has been punished for gross misconduct would have to be pe e permitted to be promoted as no minimum marks are prescr escribed for interview or performance appraisal. In our opin opinion, it is fallacious to presume that under the 1998 Rules, o les, once an officer gets the minimum marks in the written exam examination, he would be entitled to be promoted on the basis o sis of seniority alone. There is no warrant for such a presump sumption. The misconduct committed by eligible employee/office fficer would be a matter for DPC to take into consideration at th DP at the time of performance appraisal. The past conduct of an em n employee can always be taken into consideration in adjudgin dging the suitability of the officer for performing the duties of the f the higher post.

40. There is another very ery good reason for not accepting the submissions made b e by Mr. Dhruv Mehta. Different rules/regulations of the Di he banks provide specific punishments such as “withholding of g of promotion, reduction in rank, lowering in ranks/pay scales cales”. However, there is another range of penalty such a h as censure, reprimand, withholding of increments etc. whic which are also prescribed under various staff regulations. To d To debar such an employee from being considered for promotion otion would tantamount to inflicting on such employee oyee, the punishment of withholding of promotion. In su such circumstances, a punishment of censure/ reprimand w nd would, in fact, read as censure/reprimand + 5 years debar ebarment from promotion. Thus the circulars issued by the Th the bank debarring such employees from being considered wo would be clearly contrary to the statutory rules. The circulars cl rs clearly do not fall within the ratio in Sant Ram’s case (supra) ra).”

25. Howeve owever, we are of firm view that a pe at a person cannot earn a promotion during th ring the pendency of a punishment hment order. If a person has been punished nished with stopping of increments for nts for a particular period, he cannot MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) be grant granted promotion during that perio , he t period, because on promotion, he would be uld be entitled for increment. Both the oth the things cannot go together.

26. In Union nion of India and others vs. K.V. Ja 91) .V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 10 C 109, the Supreme Court observed served as under: “29. According to us, the T he Tribunal has erred in holding that when an officer is found und guilty in the discharge of his duties, an imposition of penalty nalty is all that is necessary to improve his conduct and to enforc force discipline and ensure purity in the administration. In the fir e first instance, the penalty short of dismissal will vary from reduc eduction in rank to censure. We are sure that the Tribunal has We has not intended that the promotion should be given to the of e officer from the original date even when the penalty imparted rted is of reduction in rank. On principle, for the same reasons, On ons, the officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter atter of course even if the penalty is other than that of the the reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion. H n. He has only a right to be considered for promotion. The promo c omotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon pon several circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the least To ast that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemishe ished record. That is the minimum expected to ensure a a clean and efficient administration and to protect the the public interests. An employee found guilty of a miscondu nduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his d his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore, no disc discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated diffe differently. The least that is expected of any administration is tha that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospecti ectively from a date when for his conduct before that date he is e is penalised in praesenti. When an employee is held guilty Wh ilty and penalised and is, therefore, not promoted at least till t till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to hav have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A den denial of promotion in such MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) circumstances is not a penalty but a ut a necessary consequence of his conduct. In fact, while consid nsidering an employee for promotion his whole record has to be consideration and if a promotion tion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee oyee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such den denial is not illegal and unjustified. If,further, the promoting ing authority can take into consideration the penalty or pena penalties awarded to an employee in the past while consider sidering his promotion and deny him promotion on that ground, und, it will be irrational to hold that it cannot take the penalty int y into consideration when it is imposed at a later date because use of the pendency of the proceedings, although it is for condu nduct prior to the date the authority considers the promotion. Fo For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not rig ot right in striking down the said portion of the second sub- paragr ragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorand randum. We, therefore, set aside the said findings of the Tribunal. unal.”

27. Having ving considered the law as above, w /writ ve, we find that the respondent/writ petitione titioner could not have been promoted 2017 omoted with effect from 14.08.2017 on accou account of currency of his punishm unishment. However, his case was required uired to be considered afresh after th fter the currency of the punishment lost its e t its effect i.e. from 17.12.2017 onwa le as onwards. Vacancy was available as on 17.12

17.12.2017, and the Promotion Comm ve to Committee would therefore have to take into e into consideration his record as on 1 as on 17.12.2017 ignoring the minor punishme nishment, which lost its relevancy.

28. It is sett is settled law that the Courts would no ould not themselves direct or declare anyone a yone as promoted from a particular d f an cular date, because promotion of an individua ividual not only requires considerati ideration of his eligibility but other aspects a pects also. MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M)

29. In view view thereof, we set aside the order ge to order passed by the Single Judge to the exten extent of declaring entitlement of r for nt of respondent/writ petitioner for promotio omotion with effect from 17.12.201 t the 2.2017, and instead we direct the appellant pellant to now consider the case of ase of the petitioner for promotion against ainst the vacancy available as on 1 on 17.12.2017, after ignoring the minor p nor punishment order supra. If the t for If the petitioner is found fit for promotio omotion, the same shall be ordered efits. ed with consequential benefits. However wever, his pay would be fixed notiona otionally.

30. The app he appeal is accordingly disposed of w d of with aforesaid directions.

31. Complia ompliance of this order shall be done w done within a period of three months hencefor nceforth.

32. All pend ll pending applications stand disposed posed of. (SANJE ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) (ME JUDGE

21.01.2025 Mohit goyal

1. Whether 2. Whether ether speaking/reasoned? ether reportable? Yes/No Ye Yes/No Ye MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document