21.01.2025 Date of v. **** llant
Case Details
LPA-1284-2024 024 (O&M) Page 1 of 16 202 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ARH CHANDIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA AT STATE BANK ANK OF INDIA SUTEEKSHAN SHAN MIRD LPA-1284-2024(O&M) M) Reserved on: 09.01.2025 2025 2025 ate of Pronouncement: 21.01.2025 Date of Vs. **** llant . . . . Appellant dent . . . . Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ CORAM: HO HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE HO SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate Present: M for the appellant. for M Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advoc for the respondent. for Advocate **** SANJEEV PR V PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. The app e appellant by way of this Appeal ated Appeal assails the judgment dated 04.04.20 .04.2024 passed by the learned Singl 9 of Single Judge in CWP No.6629 of 2020, wh , whereby the learned Single Judge p Judge passed the following order: “20. In the light of above discu discussion and findings, the question of promotion in subseque qu equent years has become irrelevant, nevertheless, it is noticed irr iced that the petitioner was considered in subsequent years i.e co i.e. 2019 and2020. The promoting authority considered his pr his case along with other candidates but did not select him. T ca m. The respondent has not made promotions on the basis of senio ma seniority but on the basis of merit/performance. The petitioner me failed to compete with others. This Court cannot substitute oth itute opinion of promoting authority. It was subjective opinion au ion of promoting authority which was based upon past record and wh 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) Page 2 of 16 of the petitioner qua decision of p of of promoting authority in subsequent years is hereby rejected. su 21. In the wake of above discu iscussion and findings, it is hereby held that petitioner is entitl he 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 oth 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 writ spondent herein) had preferred a writ before th fore this Court wherein he made se uded de several prayers which included quashing ashing of the appellant’s action in rev ide in reverting the writ petitioner vide order da der dated 02.08.2018 and rejecting h order 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 also etitioner submits that he had also challenge allenged the enquiry report; the puni the e punishment orders passed by the disciplin ciplinary authority; and the orders w view 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 also was upheld. The petitioner had also prayed th ayed that he should be promoted on the ffect 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 stant 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) Page 3 of 16 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 erms aint, enquiry was conducted in terms of Sexua Sexual Harassment of Women at Work ition t Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redr d Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter re ment fter referred as ‘Sexual Harassment Act, 201 t, 2013’). The Committee formed und ioner 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 anch 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 erred ulative effect. Appeal was preferred against ainst the punishment order dated 1 was 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 iated anks, State Bank of India initiated promotio omotion process, and the petitione view titioner was called for interview whereaft ereafter he was promoted with effe hief h effect from 14.08.2017 as Chief Manager anager (SMGS-IV). Show cause notic ioner 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 the 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 and 7. The petitioner was reverted and relieved ieved from his post on 02.08.20 was .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 any d been reverted before taking any decision cision on the reply filed by him to the nally 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) Page 4 of 16 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 ncies for promotion against the vacancies of 2018 2018 and 2019, and persons junior to writ 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, ingle olicy, the view taken by the Single Judge w dge was not correct, and the peti been 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 atic person could not claim an automatic promotio omotion. The respondent/writ peti for 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) Page 5 of 16 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 adre 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 rned 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 ering 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 nged 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 with oted and posted on deputation with the Gove Government of USA. The petition oted etitioner was erroneously promoted with effe th effect from 14.08.2017, while the p two e the punishment of stopping his two incremen rements for 30 months would end onl ore 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 the promoted, and the claim of the petitione titioner was required to be rejected. 12. Learned
Legal Reasoning
/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 was unishment. However, his case was required uired to be considered afresh after th ment 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 inor 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 clare 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 other 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) Page 16 of 16 29. In view
Arguments
earned counsel for the appellant furthe udge further submits that the Single Judge ought n ght not have exercised his powers the powers under Article 226 of the Constitut nstitution of India to grant promotio has 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) Page 6 of 16 invited a ited attention to clause 5(f) of the P neral f the Promotion Policy for General Cadre Of dre Officers which reflects that the of 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 gible 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- 18. 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 since 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 ereto o increments and punishment thereto ended on ded on 16.12.2017. However, for the e ancy 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 ssed 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) Page 7 of 16 once the ce the rigour was over, he was require ction equired to be considered. The action of the a the appellant also suffers from ille was m illegality as the petitioner was reverted erted even before the reply of the sh mits the show cause notice. He submits that the t the petitioner has always had outstan llant 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 reme 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 has the respondent/writ petitioner has relied on ied on judgment of Supreme Court iya 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 on 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 rvice 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 by cutive Committee from time to time.” to 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 efore 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) Page 8 of 16 19. The que e question however arises in the 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 adre romotion Policy for General Cadre Officers, ficers, Promotions to SMGS-IV and upto 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 off motion is to be prepared. However, in respect of the office Ho fficers whose results for promotion cannot be declared immed pr mediately, the findings are held in a sealed cover and record he corded separately, and an indication evidencing that such a cov ind cover exists is recorded, if the officer is exonerated of the charg the 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 he motion, he/she is promoted thereafter with retrospective effect from the t from the date he/she would have been promoted but for the pe ha e pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him/her against a pr inst a vacancy in the higher grade that may have arisen in the gr the meantime. If no such vacancy has arisen, he/she is promot va omoted to the higher grade with retrospective effect on a sup wi supernumerary basis and absorbed against a future vacancy in t ab in that grade. 8. The procedure stated abov above is followed, mutatis mutandis, in considering the confi mu onfirmation of an officer against whom disciplinary action is pe ag is pending or contemplated. (i) Where the departmental p al proceedings have ended with the imposition of a minor penalty wi nalty, viz., censure, recovery of pecuniary loss to the bank, withhold of holding of increment of pay or withholding of promotion, the dec or 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 no r, in the case of censure, the first sealed cover is not given effect to fir ct to, but subsequent sealed covers, if any, are opened in chron co ronological order and the findings of the Promoting Authority fin ority acted upon. Officers punished on the conclusion of the d pu 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) Page 9 of 16 are not to be considered during the ar the period of penalty i.e., during the period of rigour. du (ii) In the case of imposition tion of major penalties, all sealed covers are rendered infructuous sea tuous. (iii) Insofar as the confirmation ation of an officer in similar circumstances is concerned, the C cir e Competent Authority is required to review the case of the co req e confirmation immediately after the conclusion of disciplinary aft ary proceedings and if the findings held in sealed cover are in fin re in favour of the officer, he/she will be confirmed in the relativ he lative grade or scale from a retrospective date.” ret 20. Thus, as hus, as the punishment of stoppage of osed age of two increments was imposed vide ord e order dated 17.06.2015 and the sa erate the said punishment was to operate for a per r a period of 30 months, the increment after 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 xure /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 er cumulative effect: The Officer cu is not eligible for consideration co for promotion for for the period his/her increment(s) is/are withheld.” inc 22. In view view of the policy which was brou year s brought into force from the year 2018-19 19 onwards, date of eligibility has ean 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 has 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) Page 10 of 16 2018-19 19 reflects that the consideration fo ccur 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 that arned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner was not eligible as o the le as on 1st of April, 2017, relying on g on the clause of the promotion policy the e for policy which has come into force for the year 2018-19 onwards, cannot the otion cannot be accepted as the promotion policy of 2018-19 onwards specifi po ould specifically is prospective and would not apply to 2017-18. no 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 in 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 ser termine the minimum merit by the DPC. But to debar a candidat by didate, to be considered for promotion, on the basis of punishm pr nishment or unsatisfactory record would require the necessary pr rec ry provision in the statutory service Rules. There is no such pro ser provision under the 1998 Rules. Ru 37. In B.V. Sivaiah (supra), th , this Court laid down the broad contours defining the term “b br “bare minimum merit” in the following words: the “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) Page 11 of 16 promotion postulates hat given that the minimum necessary merit isite requisite for efficiency of administration, the nior, senior, even though less 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 that the determination of the bare minimum cr de m criteria is the function of the DPC and cannot be taken-over by the r by the management at the time of determining the eligibility of tim of a candidate under Rule 2(e). 2(e 38. The reliance placed by M y Mr. Dhruv Mehta on the judgment of jud this court in the c e case of Ram Ashish Dixit(supra) is also misconceived. In Di . In the aforesaid case, the officer had been considered for off for promotion during the pendency of pe 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 sea of the proceedings, the appellants requested the authority to ap 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 vie 8th March, 1998 as he had been punished. Subsequently, again be gain his case was to be considered for promotion in Septemb co tember, 1999. However, he was denied consideration for prom wa promotion in view of the conditions contained in Circular date co dated 28th March, 1998. It was submitted on behalf of the appella wa pellants that the punishment imposed upon the staff of the Bank can im 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) Page 12 of 16 ineligibility for promotion since the e ine the eligibility for promotion is prescribed under the RRB Rules, 19 is s, 1988. It was submitted on behalf of the bank (respondent therein be erein) that since stoppage of increment for 3 years is a punishm inc ishment imposed upon the appellants, during the period, he ap he would be undergoing punishment, he could not have been c pu en considered to be eligible for promotion. Therefore, according t for ing to the bank, respondent had been rightly held to be ineligibl ha 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 in ultra vires of the rules. In answering the rival submissions, this C an 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 en bers of the DPC do not recommend for promotion an indi rec individual officer despite having been punished in the prec ha preceding 5 years. Such curtailment of the power of the D cu e DPC would have to be located in the statutory service rules. loc les. The 1998 Rules do not contain any such provision. The sub co submission needs merely to be stated, to be rejected. We also do n be 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) Page 13 of 16 submission of Mr. Mehta su that w at without the aforesaid guidelines, an officer, even though, he gu h, he has been punished for gross misconduct would have to be pe gr e permitted to be promoted as no minimum marks are prescr as escribed for interview or performance appraisal. In our opin pe opinion, it is fallacious to presume that under the 1998 Rules, o pr les, once an officer gets the minimum marks in the written exam mi examination, he would be entitled to be promoted on the basis o en sis of seniority alone. There is no warrant for such a presump is sumption. The misconduct committed by eligible employee/office co 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 ap n employee can always be taken into consideration in adjudgin tak dging the suitability of the officer for performing the duties of the off f the higher post. 40. There is another very ery good reason for not accepting the submissions made b ac e by Mr. Dhruv Mehta. Different rules/regulations of the Di he banks provide specific punishments such as “withholding of pu g of promotion, reduction in rank, lowering in ranks/pay scales ra cales”. However, there is another range of penalty such a an h as censure, reprimand, withholding of increments etc. whic wi which are also prescribed under various staff regulations. To d un To debar such an employee from being considered for promotion fro otion would tantamount to also als inflicting on such employee oyee, the punishment of withholding of promotion. wi In su such circumstances, a punishment of censure/ reprimand w pu nd would, in fact, read as censure/reprimand + 5 years debar ce ebarment from promotion. Thus the circulars issued by the Th the bank debarring such employees from being considered wo em would be clearly contrary to the statutory rules. The circulars cl to rs clearly do not fall within the ratio in Sant Ram’s case (supra) the ra).” 25. Howeve owever, we are of firm view that a pe otion at a person cannot earn a promotion during th ring the pendency of a punishment been hment order. If a person has been punished nished with stopping of increments for nnot 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) Page 14 of 16 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 ho und guilty in the discharge of his duties, an imposition of penalty of nalty is all that is necessary to improve his conduct and to enforc to force discipline and ensure purity in the administration. In the fir pu e first instance, the penalty short of dismissal will vary from reduc sh 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 pr e officer from the original date even when the penalty imparted da rted is of reduction in rank. On principle, for the same reasons, On ons, the officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter rew atter of course even if the penalty is other than that of the pe the reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion. H em 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 so pon several circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the least To ast that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemishe em ished record. That is the minimum expected mi to ensure a a clean and efficient administration and to protect the ad the public interests. An employee found guilty of a miscondu em nduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his pa d his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore, no disc dif discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated diffe ma differently. The least that is expected of any administration is tha ex that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospecti em ectively from a date when for his conduct before that date he is for e is penalised in praesenti. When an employee is held guilty Wh ilty and penalised and is, therefore, not promoted at least till t the till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to hav pe have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A den fur 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) Page 15 of 16 circumstances is not a penalty but a cir ut a necessary consequence of his conduct. In fact, while consid of nsidering an employee for has promotion his whole record has pr to be taken into consideration and if a promotion co tion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee pe oyee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such den de denial is not illegal and unjustified. If,further, the promoting un ing authority can take into consideration the penalty or pena co penalties awarded to an employee in the past while consider em sidering his promotion and deny him promotion on that ground, de und, it will be irrational to hold that it cannot take the penalty int ho y into consideration when it is imposed at a later date because is use of the pendency of the proceedings, although it is for condu pr nduct prior to the date the authority considers the promotion. Fo au For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not rig of ot right in striking down the said portion of the second sub- paragr sa ragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorand pa randum. We, therefore, set aside the said findings of the Tribunal. as unal.” 27. Having ving considered the law as above, w
Decision
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 otion ase of the petitioner for promotion against ainst the vacancy available as on 1 the 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 nths 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