AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Rajendran, J.—This writ petition has been filed to to consider the claim of the applicant for including his name in the panel for the year
1998-99 without taking into consideration the punishments suffered in PR No. 114/95 and PR. No. 225/96 and promote him as Inspector of
Police and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits at par with his juniors.
The only point which was raised is that the petitioner who sought for promotion to include his name for promotion in the 1998-99 list was
undergoing a punishment in respect of 2 P.R.''s. His application challenging the punishment has been dismissed. Now it is fairly submitted and
admitted by the petitioner that during the relevant point of time, the currencey of punishment was there. The petitioner''s relief seeking to include his
name in the promotional list for the year 1998-99 cannot be granted as the currency of punishment was in force at the relevant point of time.
It is also relevant to state that the Government, in Lr. No. 248, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 20.10.1997 had
instructed that any punishment other than ''Censure'' imposed on an officer within a period of five years prior to the crucial date and punishment of
censure within a period of one year prior to the crucial date should be held against the officer and their names should be passed over from
consideration.
Following the various decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court which are followed in my earlier decision in W.P. No. 38420 of 2006 in
paragraphs 6 to 11 are as follows:
The issue involved in this writ petition has been answered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in Collector of Thanjavur
Distt. and Others Vs. S. Rajagopalan and Others, wherein it was held that the Tribunal was in error in thinking that if the minor punishments
inflicted on the respondents were taken into consideration at the time of considering their merit for the purpose of inclusion in the list of Deputy
Tahsildars, that would amount to double jeopardy. In our opinion the said view expressed by the Tribunal is clearly contrary to the legal position
enunciated in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman. In Para No. 6, it was held as follows:
We are of the view that the Tribunal was in error in thinking that if the minor punishments inflicted on the respondents were taken into
consideration at the time of considering their merit for the purpose of inclusion in the list of Deputy Tahsildars, that would amount to double
jeopardy. In our opinion the said view expressed by the Tribunal is clearly contrary to the legal position in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman. This
Court held that: SCC pp. 122-23, paras 28-29
The Tribunal has also struck down the following portion in the second sub-para after Clause (iii) of para 3 which reads as follows: �If any
penalty is imposed on the officer as a result of the disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the court proceedings against him, the findings
in the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon� and has directed that if the proceedings result in a penalty, the person concerned should be
considered for promotion in a Review DPC as on the original date in the light of the results of the sealed cover as also the imposition of penalty,
and his claim for promotion cannot be deferred for the subsequent DPCs as provided in the instructions. It may be pointed out that the said sub-
paragraph directs that ''the officer''s case for promotion may be considered in the usual manner by the next DPC which meets in the normal course
after the conclusion of the disciplinary/court proceedings''. The Tribunal has given the direction in question on the ground that such deferment of the
claim for promotion to the subsequent DPCs amounts to a double penalty. According to the Tribunal, �it not only violates Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution compared with other employees who are not at the verge of promotion when the disciplinary proceedings are initiated against them
but also offends the rule against double jeopardy contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution�. The Tribunal has, therefore, held that when an
employee is visited with a penalty as a result of the disciplinary proceedings there should be a Review DPC as on the date when the sealed cover
procedure was followed and the Review DPC should consider the findings in the sealed cover as also the penalty imposed. It is not clear to us as
to why the Tribunal wants the Review DPC to consider the penalty imposed while considering the findings in the sealed cover if, according to the
Tribunal, not giving effect to the findings in the sealed cover even when a penalty is imposed, amounts to double jeopardy. However, as we read
the findings of the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal in no case wants the promotion of the officer to be deferred once the officer is visited with a
penalty in the disciplinary proceedings and the Tribunal desires that the officer should be given promotion as per the findings in the sealed cover.
According to us, the Tribunal has erred in holding that when an officer is found guilty in the discharge of his duties, an imposition of penalty is all
that is necessary to improve his conduct and to enforce discipline and ensure purity in the administration. In the first instance, the penalty short of
dismissal will vary from reduction in rank to censure. We are sure that the Tribunal has not intended that the promotion should be given to the
officer from the original date even when the penalty imparted is of reduction in rank. On principle, for the same reasons, the officer cannot be
rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if the penalty is other than that of reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion. He
has only a right to be considered for promotion. The promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances.
To qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. That is the minimum expected to ensure a
clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interests. An employee found guilty of a misconduct cannot be placed on par with the
other employees and his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated
differently. The least that is expected of any administration is that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospectively from a date when
for his conduct before that date he is penalised in praesenti. When an employee is held guilty and penalised and is, therefore, not promoted at least
till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A denial of promotion in such
circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct. In fact, while considering an employee for promotion his whole record
has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him
the promotion, such denial is not illegal and unjustified. If, further, the promoting authority can take into consideration the penalty or penalties
awarded to an employee in the past while considering his promotion and deny him promotion on that ground, it will be irrational to hold that it
cannot take the penalty into consideration when it is imposed at a later date because of the pendency of the proceedings, although it is for conduct
prior to the date the authority considers the promotion. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not right in striking down the said
portion of the second sub-para after Clause (iii) of para 3 of the said memorandum. We, therefore, set aside the said findings of the Tribunal.
In State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. P. Bose and another, , it was held that the respondent awarded in the immediate past (the preceding
year in this case) punishments of censure for failure to attend to duty to restore law and order, postponement of increment for delaying the
registration of a case of a serious offence and censure for disobeying the instructions of a superior. In such circumstances, non-inclusion of the
appellant in the list of candidates eligible for promotion to next higher post of Inspector of Police did not warrant interference by the Tribunal and
his non-inclusion is valid. In Para No. 1 of the said judgment, it was held as follows:
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal set aside the decision
of the department not to include the name of respondent 1 in the list of candidates eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Inspector of
Police. It transpires that in the year 1987 respondent 1 was visited with three punishments: (i) a censure on November 17, 1987 for neglect of duty
in not attending to law and order situation which arose due to water scarcity; (ii) postponement of increment for neglect of duty in delaying the
registration of a case Madurai City B-8 Police Station Cr. No. 567 of 1987, under Sections 448 and 376 IPC and (iii) a censure on December
15, 1987 for irresponsible conduct and disobedience of instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police. All these acts of misconduct and
misdemeanour were during the period of two months, i.e. April and May 1987. When the question of considering whether or not respondent 1
was fit for promotion to the next higher post came up for consideration in 1988, on account of the aforesaid punishments with which he was visited
in the year 1987 for acts of misconduct/misdemeanour during the months of April and May 1987 the authorities did not consider him fit for
inclusion in the panel for promotion. Thereupon, respondent 1 approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal relying on G.O.Ms No. 289 dated March
12, 1980 came to the conclusion that since the misconduct was not of a serious nature e.g., corruption, gross negligence or failure in the discharge
of duties and responsibilities but the charges for which the punishments were imposed being relatively of a minor nature, the authorities ought to
have considered his overall performance. We are afraid we cannot accede to this line of reasoning. Respondent 1 being a police officer, was
expected to show devotion and dedication to duty and this is what he lacked if we are to bear in mind the reasons why he was visited with three
punishments during the year 1987. Failure to attend to duty to restore law and order, failure to promptly register a serious offence and refusal to
carry out or obey instructions of a superior, though visited with minor penalties are not matters which are not germane to the selection process. The
next higher post of Inspector of Police being a very responsible post a person with a weak record with three punishments in the immediately
preceding year if not selected could not be heard to say that though fit for promotion to the next higher post he was wrongly ignored. The post of
Inspector of Police being a pivotal post in a uniformed service must be filled in by persons of integrity and devotion to duty and internal discipline
and anyone who has betrayed a tendency to ignore the same in the immediate past cannot aspire for promotion. The Tribunal was, therefore,
wrong in interfering with the selection process. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the discretion of
those who were charged with the duty to select persons eligible for promotion.
Similarly, in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in State of T.N. Vs. Thiru K.S. Murugesan and Others, , it was held that
where the rules provided for promotion on the basis of merit and ability, withholding of promotion on account of currency of punishment of
stoppage of increments would neither amounted to double jeopardy nor arbitrary exercise of power. In Para No. 7, it was held as follows:
It would thus be clear that when promotion is under consideration, the previous record forms the basis and when the promotion is on merit and
ability, the currency of punishment based on previous record stands as an impediment. Unless the period of punishment gets expired by efflux of
time, the claim for consideration during the said period cannot be taken up. Otherwise, it would amount to retrospective promotion which is
impermissible under the rules and it would be a premium on misconduct. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the doctrine of
double jeopardy has no application and non-consideration is neither violative of Article 21 nor Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.
In L. Rajaiah Vs. Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad and Others, , it was held that an employee undergoing punishment
of stoppage of increment is not entitled to be considered for promotion during that period of punishment. In Para No. 4, it was held as follows:
A reading thereof clearly indicates that notwithstanding anything contained in special ad hoc rules, all promotions to non-selection category or
grade shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 16, may be made in accordance with seniority-cum-fitness unless promotion of a member has been
withheld as a penalty. Though due to stoppage of increment, he is not ineligible for consideration for promotion, he is otherwise entitled to be
considered in accordance with the rules, namely, seniority-cum-fitness. However, when seniority-cum-fitness is the criteria, the imposition of the
penalties for one year on 1-3-1988 and in another enquiry, stoppage of increment for five years from 1-3-1989, i.e., till 28-2-1994, disentitled him
to be considered; so he did not regain fitness for consideration for promotion as he was under disability undergoing punishment. Consequently,
when the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant is on the basis of merit and ability under special rules, fitness is one of the considerations for the
purpose. Since he was undergoing punishment during the relevant period, he is not eligible for consideration for promotion. Therefore, his juniors
have stolen march over the appellant as Senior Assistants. He cannot thereby have any grievance. However, he is entitled to be considered for
promotion according to rules after 1-3-1994.
In a decision of the three Judges of Honourable Supreme Court reported in Union of India and others Vs. K. Krishnan, it was held that denial
of promotion during the currency of penalty in disciplinary proceedings against an employee wouold not be said tobe arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or it does not subject the employee to double jeopardy. In Para No. 4, it was held as follows:
We have considered the matter closely and in our opinion the view taken by the Tribunal both in the impugned judgment and in the earlier
decisions holding that as a result of the provisions of Rule 157 forbidding the promotion of a State employee during the currency of the penalty
results in a second punishment, is not correct. There is only one punishment visiting the respondent as a result of the conclusion reached in the
disciplinary proceeding leading to the withholding of increment, and the denial of promotion during the currency of the penalty is merely a
consequential result thereof. The view that a government servant for the reason that he is suffering a penalty or a disciplinary proceeding cannot at
the same time be promoted to a higher cadre is a logical one and no exception can be taken to Rule 157. It is not correct to assume that Rule 157
by including the aforementioned provision is subjecting the government servant concerned to double jeopardy. We do not find any merit in the
argument that there is no justification or rationale behind this policy; nor do we see any reason to condemn it as unjustified, arbitrary and violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, to punish a servant and at the same time to promote him during the currency
of the punishment may justifiably be termed as self-contradictory. The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside.
In all the above decisions, the Honourable Supreme Court had categorically held that denial of promotion during the currency of punishment by
the employer is warranted. In this case, admittedly, when the respondent drew the panel for promotion to the post of Tahsildars in the year 1998,
the petitioner was imposed with punishment and therefore, his name was rightly not included in the panel. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in
the action of the respondent.
Hence, once there is a punishment in currency, he will not be entitled for promotion. Hence, the relief, as sought for by the petitioner cannot be
granted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.