Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010252772024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/150/2025 1: UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. THROUGH MINISTRY OF HOME, NEW DELHI 2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF NEW DELHI 3: THE INSPECTOR GENERAL PERS O/O THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF NEW DELH VERSUS PAWAN KUMARA TIWARI S/O SHRI ADYA PRASAD TIWARI, RESIDENT OF IG M.P. SECTOR, BANGARASIA, BHOJPUR ROAD, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH. (PRESENTLY POSTED AT RECRUITS TRAINING CENTRE, CRPF, AVADI, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600065) For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Deka, Central Government Counsel, Ms. A. Jain, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sarma, Advocate. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 28.04.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. B. Deka, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Sarma, learned Advocate for the sole respondent. Page No.# 2/6 The Union of India/appellant has questioned the judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.8036/2017 (Pawan Kumar Tiwari -Vs- Union of India & 11 Ors.), whereby it has been directed that the respondent herein be given promotion and consequent benefit of seniority with effect from the date he was recommended by the DPC, i.e. 22.06.2015 instead of 01.01.2016, which is the date on which the currency of the punishment imposed against the respondent in a departmental proceeding ended. The respondent was subjected to a departmental proceeding and on the basis of the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer, he was saddled with the penalty of stoppage of 2(two) increments for a period of 2(two) years with the caveat that he shall be given the increments which he would earn normally within those 2(two) periods and such reduction will not have any postponing effect on the future financial benefits to the respondent. This penalty was imposed on 31.12.2013. During the currency of the afore-noted punishment imposed upon the respondent, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held in which the case of the respondent was considered and he was found fit for promotion. The recommendation of the DPC, however, indicated that the respondent shall be promoted from the date when the currency of the punishment imposed upon him would expire. Consequently, the respondent was promoted but from 01.01.2016 and not from 22.06.2015, the date of recommendation. This late promotion to the respondent had obviously disturbed his seniority and, therefore, he challenged the decision of the employer in Page No.# 3/6 granting him promotion from 01.01.2016 before a Bench of this Court, as has already been referred to earlier. The learned Single Judge delved into a number of facts appearing in the case of the respondent and found that he had been considered by the DPC in the past on several occasions with respect to vacancies of those respective years. In all such DPCs, the case of the respondent was considered in sealed cover. On 18.09.2014, the respondent was again considered for promotion and was found unfit. However, for the vacancies arising in the year 2015-16, another DPC was convened on 22.06.2015, wherein also the consideration with respect to the respondent was made under sealed cover for the reason of the respondent having been put to a punishment of reduction of pay for 2(two) stages for 2(two) years and the currency of such punishment still subsisting. However, the DPC, on 22.06.2015, declared the respondent to be fit for promotion for the vacancy of the year 2015-16 but, as noted above, clearly recommended that the respondent shall be given the benefit of promotion after the currency of the punishment. The currency of the punishment ended on 31.12.2015 and consequently the respondent was promoted to the rank of Commandant with effect from 01.01.2016. The learned Single Judge, appears to have relied on a Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 10.10.1962, wherein it was stipulated that where reduction is for a specified period and is not to operate for the purposes of postponing Page No.# 4/6 future increment, seniority of the Government servant may, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise, be fixed in the higher service, grade or post or the higher time scale at what it would have been but for the reduction in the pay scale. Reading this as a rider, the learned Single Judge opined that in case of minor punishment with clear stipulation that the punishment will not have any postponing effect on future financial benefits, the respondent was required to be restored his seniority by promoting him from the date of the DPC clearance. With utmost respect at our command, this reading of the Circular was misplaced. All that the Circular recommended was that in cases of minor punishment with a specific stipulation of its currency for a limited period, the delinquent/ employee shall be reverted back to the position to which he was prior to the punishment. This could not have been related to a future promotion for which DPC was held separately for a vacancy arising in the year when the DPC was concluded. The law with respect to disciplinary jurisprudence is well settled. Promotion can only be given after the expiry of the penalty and not from the date of the DPC recommendation. The assumption that once recommended by the DPC, promotion must relate back to the date, is uncalled for. A subsisting penalty creates a legal bar and granting retrospective promotion would neutralize the penalty indirectly and would severely undermine the disciplinary jurisprudence. [Refer to Union of India & Ors. -Vs- K.V. Jankiraman & Ors. :: (1991) 4 SCC 109 and Mohammed Page No.# 5/6 Faizal K.A. -Vs- D. Sali & Ors. :: 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 971]. In both the judgments, referred to above, it has been clarified that on principle, an officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if penalties are other than that of reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion but only has a right to be considered for promotion. To qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record, which is the minimum expectation from a Government servant. An employee found guilty of a misconduct cannot be placed on par with other employees and his case has to be treated differently. In this context, it was held by the Supreme Court in the afore-noted 2(two) judgments that there would be no discrimination on such an employee when in the matter of promotion, he is treated differently. It was further adumbrated that if an employee is held guilty and penalized and is, therefore, not promoted till the date on which he remains penalized, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. The denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct. None of the Circulars relied upon by the learned Single Judge give any passage to an employee to claim promotion from a date when he was recommended by the DPC during the currency of the punishment imposed upon him in a departmental proceeding. Seen thus, we do not approve of the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned and perforce we require to upturn the same. Page No.# 6/6 We order accordingly. The judgment impugned in the present appeal is set aside. The promotion to the respondent from 01.01.2016 is restored. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant