AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.—This Writ Petition is for Mandamus for directing the first respondent to promote the petitioner as Quality Inspector
with effect from 1-4-1985 and also fix his seniority by placing him above the second respondent. The case of the Petitioner is that he was
appointed as Assistant Quality Inspector on 14-6-1976 in the first respondent Corporation. He has passed the test also. Thus he was senior to the
second respondent and yet when panel of the Assistant Quality Inspector for promotion as Quality Inspectors were prepared during 1983-84, his
name was not included. But the second respondent got promoted. The reason for not including the name of the petitioner in the panel was that a
charge was pending on the date of preparing the panel i.e., 1-4-1985. But subsequently the charges were dropped on 15-5-1985 and without
proceeding further with reference to the charges, only a warning was issued, therefore the petitioner is entitled for promotion. Even though the
Senior Regional Manager recommended his case for promotion on 15-10-1987, it was rejected on 7-11-1957. Hence the Writ Petition.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 14-6-1976 as Assistant Quality
Inspector and completed the probation on 14-6-1977. The passing of the District Office Manual test and Commercial Book Keeping test etc., are
also admitted. The Petitioner''s seniority over the second respondent in the cadre of Assistant Quality Inspector is also admitted. But on a report
from the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation. North Arcot, for the year 1985, his name was not included. But in the case of the Second
respondent, who was punished with a stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect on 13-2-1985 promotion was given as such
a punishment was not a bar. But however, later on, on enquiry the punishment imposed on the second respondent was deleted on his appeal. The
petitioner''s name was not included on account of the policy decision of the first respondent Corporation not to include the names of persons
against whom charges were pending. But even then, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against his non-inclusion in the seniority list. Even
though the charges were dropped, warning has been issued. Hence, he is not eligible for inclusion in the panel.
No counter has been filed on behalf of the second respondent.
The main contention urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that once the charges have been dropped, he is entitled to get his consequential
promotion and seniority. Further, it was brought to my notice a Judgment of Justice D. Raju. in W.P. Nos. 12110 and 12174 of 1988, dated 12-
8- 1991 wherein the learned judge has observed as follows:-
In view of the declaration of law by the Apex Courts as well as this Court, I am of the view that mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings per se
does not constitute sufficient ground to deny the promotion of a person and any such denial would constitute violation of Article 16 of the
Constitution of India.
I respectfully agree with the view expressed by the learned judge. In this case, promotion has been denied in view of the pendency of the charge,
but the charge itself has been dropped. Therefore, the petitioner will be automatically entitled to all the consequential benefits. Inspite of his
repeated request and appeal, the consequential benefits have not been granted. Therefore, he is justified in moving this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Hence a Writ of Mandamus is issued as prayed for. There will be no order as to costs.