LPA-1284-2024 202 IN THE STATE BANK SUTEEKSHAN CORAM: HO HO Present: M for M for SANJEEV PR 1. The app 04.04.20 2020, wh qu irr co pr ca ma me oth au wh 024 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH Date of ANK OF INDIA Vs. SHAN MIRD **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE **** Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advoc for the respondent. **** V PRAKASH SHARMA, J. e appellant by way of this Appeal .04.2024 passed by the learned Singl , whereby the learned Single Judge p “20. In the light of above discu question of promotion in subseque irrelevant, nevertheless, it is noticed considered in subsequent years i.e promoting authority considered his candidates but did not select him. T made promotions on the basis of senio merit/performance. The petitioner others. This Court cannot substitute authority. It was subjective opinion which was based upon past record and NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH LPA-1284-2024(O&M) Reserved on: 09.01.2025 ate of Pronouncement: 21.01.2025 . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Advocate Appeal assails the judgment dated Single Judge in CWP No.6629 of Judge passed the following order: discussion and findings, the equent years has become iced that the petitioner was i.e. 2019 and2020. The his case along with other m. The respondent has not seniority but on the basis of failed to compete with itute opinion of promoting ion of promoting authority and viva voce. Thus, claim M) 2025 2025 llant dent ated 9 of MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 of su he 17 oth M 2. Brief fac that the o before th quashing order da dated 04 SMGS- 3. Learned challenge disciplin were reje months w prayed th from 17. release th currency 4. A compl Manager petitione 024 (O&M) of the petitioner qua decision of p subsequent years is hereby rejected. 21. In the wake of above discu hereby held that petitioner is entitl 17.12.2017. He shall not been titled other service benefits, his date o Manager would be 17.12.2017.” ief facts which need to be noticed for t the original writ petitioner (responde fore this Court wherein he made se ashing of the appellant’s action in rev der dated 02.08.2018 and rejecting h ted 04.10.2019 whereby the petitione -IV with effect from 14.08.2017 w arned counsel for the writ petition allenged the enquiry report; the puni ciplinary authority; and the orders w re rejected and the punishment of stop nths without cumulative effect was u ayed that he should be promoted on the m 17.12.2017, instead of 14.08.2017 ease the salary for the post of Chief M rrency of the aforesaid punishment end complaint had been filed on 14.06.2 anager, State Bank of Patiala alleging titioner who was working with the S of promoting authority in iscussion and findings, it is ntitled to promotion w.e.f. itled to arrears but for all e of promotion as Chief ed for adjudication of this appeal are spondent herein) had preferred a writ de several prayers which included in reverting the writ petitioner vide cting his appeal thereto vide order etitioner’s promotion to the post of 017 was declared as void ab initio. etitioner submits that he had also e punishment orders passed by the ers whereby the appeal and review of stopping of two increments for 30 was upheld. The petitioner had also on the post of SMGS-IV with effect .2017 as originally promoted, and to hief Manager (SMGS-IV), since the ent ended on 16.12.2017. 4.06.2014 by one female Assistant leging sexual harassment against the the State Bank of Patiala, till the l are writ uded ide order st of also the view or 30 also ffect nd to e the stant t the l the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 State Ban On the b of Sexua and Redr Act, 201 guilty of Accordin and the Manager period of against rejected v 5. After the promotio whereaft Manager on 09.04 punishme currency months a relieved transferre It is stat decision 024 (O&M) Bank of Patiala was merged with th the basis of the alleged complaint, en Sexual Harassment of Women at Work d Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter re t, 2013’). The Committee formed und ilty of the charges and proposed stric cordingly, a charge-sheet was issued t d the petitioner was ultimately punis anager on 17.06.2015 whereby two in riod of 30 months without cumulative ainst the punishment order dated 1 ected vide order dated 01.03.2016. ter the merger of both the banks, S omotion process, and the petitione ereafter he was promoted with effe anager (SMGS-IV). Show cause notic 09.04.2018 alleging that he had be nishment awarded to him was in cur rrency of punishment of stopping of nths and ended only on 16.12.2017. T ieved from his post on 02.08.20 nsferred to office at Panipat, and there is stated that the petitioner had bee cision on the reply filed by him to the with the State Bank of India in 2017. aint, enquiry was conducted in terms t Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition fter referred as ‘Sexual Harassment ed under the Act held the petitioner d strict action for his misbehaviour. sued to the petitioner on 25.11.2014, punished while working as Branch two increments were reduced for a ulative effect. Appeal was preferred ated 17.06.2015. However, it was anks, State Bank of India initiated titioner was called for interview h effect from 14.08.2017 as Chief e notice was issued to the petitioner ad been wrongly promoted as the in currency as on the day, and the ing of two increments was for 30 7. The petitioner was reverted and .08.2018, and the petitioner was d thereafter to Karnal on 24.06.2019. d been reverted before taking any to the show cause notice, and finally 017. erms ition ment ioner iour. 014, anch for a erred was iated view hief ioner s the the r 30 and was 019. any nally MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 he was promotio The petit of 2018 petition w 6. The cont who obse penalty, considere 7. Learned Rules of SBI, and Judge w considere 8. He has (Officers promotio the basis merely promotio promotio but rema 9. As regar the respo 024 (O&M) was conveyed vide letter dated 04 omotion as SMGS-IV with effect from e petitioner was further ignored for pr 2018 and 2019, and persons junior to tition was therefore filed before this Co contentions of the petitioner were c o observed that a person may not be nalty, however, it is unjustified to nsidered at all. The Single Judge theref arned counsel appearing for the app les of promotion are governed by va I, and as per the Debarment Policy, dge was not correct, and the peti nsidered for promotion. has invited attention of this Court fficers) Service Regulations, 1992, a omotion policies were framed and pr basis of selection and were therefo on account of seniority, a person omotion. The respondent/writ peti omotion for subsequent years namely 2 t remained unsuccessful. regards the order passed by the Singl respondent with effect from 17.12.2 ted 04.10.2019 informing that his t from 14.08.2017 was void ab initio. for promotion against the vacancies nior to him were promoted. The writ this Court. were considered by the Single Judge be promoted during the period of ed to conclude that he cannot be therefore passed the order supra. he appellant/Bank submits that the by various policy decisions of the olicy, the view taken by the Single e petitioner could not have been Court to the State Bank of India 992, and as per Regulation 17(1), and promotions were to be done on herefore required to be earned, and person could not claim an automatic t petitioner was considered for mely 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 Single Judge granting promotion to 17.12.2017, it was submitted that a t his itio. ncies writ e od of t be t the f the ingle been India 7(1), e on , and atic for 21 on to a MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 person is Counsel provided 10. He furth Officers, date of e provision determin per claus candidate 11. He there the case punishme to State B relevant the Gove with effe incremen submits incumbe petitione 12. Learned ought n Constitut 024 (O&M) rson is required to be considered fo unsel has invited attention to the De ovided not to be considered during the e further took this Court to the Promo ficers, Promotions to SMGS-IV and te of eligibility to be 1st April of the re ovision clearly laid down that the vari termined as on that day for the conce r clause 5(a), (b), (c), (d), the eligibilit ndidate has to be examined as on 1st Ap e therefore submits that as on 1st of A case of the petitioner for promotion nishment would come in way. Howev State Bank of Patiala and his service r evant time, he was directly promoted Government of USA. The petition th effect from 14.08.2017, while the p rements for 30 months would end onl bmits that as the petitioner did no umbent could not have been prom titioner was required to be rejected. earned counsel for the appellant furthe ght not have exercised his powers nstitution of India to grant promotio red for promotion if he is eligible. the Debarment Policy wherein it is ng the period of penalty. Promotion Policy for General Cadre and SMGS-V, which provided the relevant promotion year, and the e various eligibility criteria shall be concerned year. He submits that as igibility with regard to the concerned April of that concerned year. of April, 2017, while considering otion for 2017-18, the currency of However, as the petitioner belonged rvice record was not available at that oted and posted on deputation with etitioner was erroneously promoted e the punishment of stopping his two nd only on 16.12.2017. He therefore id not possess the eligibility, the promoted, and the claim of the further submits that the Single Judge powers under Article 226 of the omotion to the respondent. He has ible. it is adre d the d the ll be at as rned ering y of nged t that with oted two ore , the the udge the has MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 invited a Cadre Of punishme result of to partic eligibility rigour of eligible f 18. 13. Per co petitione claim of from the petitione long, an punishme 14.08.20 ended on may have 14. Learned by the continuo The appe punishme 024 (O&M) ited attention to clause 5(f) of the P dre Officers which reflects that the of nishment on the date of eligibility due ult of disciplinary action under the Se participate in the promotion proce gibility is 1st of April of the concer our of punishment ended on 16.12.2 gible for consideration for promotion contra, learned counsel appear titioner submits that the learned Single im of the petitioner for promotion wi m the day the currency of punishment titioner would be entitled for the pos g, and even though he admits that nishment, the petitioner incumbent cou .08.2017, but the stopping of two incre ded on 16.12.2017. However, for the e y have occurred, the benefit would be earned counsel for the respondent furth the Single Judge. He submits th ntinuously deprived of his promotion o e appellant has wrongfully denied his nishment was over. The vacancy was f the Promotion Policy for General the officers who are under rigour of ity due to imposition of penalty as a the Service Rules will not be eligible process. Thus, since the date of oncerned year, merely because the 6.12.2017, he cannot be treated as otion against the vacancies of 2017- appearing for the respondent/writ Single Judge has rightly allowed the ion with effect from 17.12.2017 i.e. hment ended. It is submitted that the e post which was lying vacant since ts that during the currency of the ent could not have been promoted on o increments and punishment thereto r the entire year, even if the vacancy uld be available to him. further supported the order passed its that the petitioner cannot be otion on the basis of a minor penalty. ied his promotion after the rigour of cy was lying as on 17.12.2017, and neral of as a gible e of e the d as - /writ d the 7 i.e. t the since f the d on ereto ancy ssed t be alty. ur of , and MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 once the of the a reverted that the did not c 15. Learned Court in SCC 75 relied on Gramin 2970-297 09.04.20 16. We have 17. Regulatio Regulatio Ba by to 18. The pro promotio person m promotio cannot be 024 (O&M) ce the rigour was over, he was require the appellant also suffers from ille erted even before the reply of the sh t the petitioner has always had outstan not consider him for promotion even earned counsel for the appellant has re urt in Union of India and another v 750, while the counsel for the ied on judgment of Supreme Court min Bank and others vs. Manoj Ku 2975 of 2013 and other conn .04.2013. e have considered the submissions. gulation 17(1) of the State Bank gulations, 1992 provides as under: “17(1) Promotions to all gra Bank shall be made in accordance wi by the Central Board or the Executiv to time.” he promotion policy framed under the omotion by selection and not by senio rson must possess a clean record o omotion. During the tenure of a min nnot be granted promotion. equired to be considered. The action m illegality as the petitioner was the show cause notice. He submits outstanding record, but the appellant even for the subsequent years. t has relied on judgment of Supreme her vs. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 the respondent/writ petitioner has Court in Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya j Kumar Chak, Civil Appeal Nos. connected appeals, decided on Bank of India (Officers) Service l grades of officers in the e with the policy laid down cutive Committee from time er the said Regulations provides for seniority alone, which means that a ord of service for the purpose of a minor penalty, a person therefore ction was mits llant reme ) 2 has iya os. on rvice s for hat a e of efore MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 19. The que petitione the year Officers, 2017-18 off Ho pr he ind the Pr he the ha pr gr va wi ab mu ag wi of or Au no fir co fin pu 024 (O&M) e question however arises in the titioner could be considered for prom year 2017-18. As per the Promoti ficers, Promotions to SMGS-IV and 18 is concerned, Annexure R-1 refl “7. At the time of finalizing th officers found suitable for promotio However, in respect of the office promotion cannot be declared immed held in a sealed cover and record indication evidencing that such a cov the officer is exonerated of the charg Promoting Authority held in sealed c he/she is found suitable for promoti thereafter with retrospective effect from have been promoted but for the pe proceedings against him/her against a grade that may have arisen in the vacancy has arisen, he/she is promot with retrospective effect on a sup absorbed against a future vacancy in t 8. The procedure stated abov mutandis, in considering the confi against whom disciplinary action is pe (i) Where the departmental p with the imposition of a minor penalty of pecuniary loss to the bank, withhold or withholding of promotion, the dec Authority in favour of the employee, not to be given effect to. However, in first sealed cover is not given effect to covers, if any, are opened in chron findings of the Promoting Authority punished on the conclusion of the d the present case is whether the promotion against the vacancies of romotion Policy for General Cadre V and SMGS-V, as it existed upto 1 reflects at clause 7 and 8 as under: ng the promotions, a list of motion is to be prepared. fficers whose results for mediately, the findings are corded separately, and an cover exists is recorded, if charges, the findings of the ed cover are acted upon. If motion, he/she is promoted t from the date he/she would e pendency of disciplinary inst a vacancy in the higher the meantime. If no such omoted to the higher grade supernumerary basis and in that grade. above is followed, mutatis onfirmation of an officer is pending or contemplated. al proceedings have ended nalty, viz., censure, recovery holding of increment of pay decision of the Promoting yee, kept in sealed cover, is r, in the case of censure, the ct to, but subsequent sealed ronological order and the ority acted upon. Officers he disciplinary proceedings the es of adre upto nder: MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 ar du sea cir req aft fin he ret 20. Thus, as vide ord for a per the end o 21. Learned ‘A’ to the cu co inc 22. In view 2018-19 that the e relevant to be exa the yea applicati 024 (O&M) are not to be considered during the during the period of rigour. (ii) In the case of imposition sealed covers are rendered infructuous (iii) Insofar as the confirmation circumstances is concerned, the C required to review the case of the co after the conclusion of disciplinary findings held in sealed cover are in he/she will be confirmed in the relativ retrospective date.” hus, as the punishment of stoppage of e order dated 17.06.2015 and the sa r a period of 30 months, the increment end of period of 30 months i.e. with e earned counsel for the appellant/bank h ’ to the Promotion Policy which provid “Withholding of increments o cumulative effect: The Officer consideration for promotion for increment(s) is/are withheld.” view of the policy which was brou 19 onwards, date of eligibility has t the eligibility criteria shall be determ evant promotion year. Thus, for 2018 be examined as on 1st of April, 2018 a year 2017-18, the aforesaid promotio plication. Reading of the promotion the period of penalty i.e., tion of major penalties, all tuous. ation of an officer in similar e Competent Authority is e confirmation immediately ary proceedings and if the re in favour of the officer, lative grade or scale from a age of two increments was imposed the said punishment was to operate rements would be restored only after with effect from 17.12.2017. /bank has further relied on Annexure provides as under: nts of pay with or without er is not eligible for for the period his/her s brought into force from the year ty has also been mentioned to mean determined as on 1st of April of the r 2018-19, the date of eligibility has 2018 and so on and so forth. But for motion policy clause would have no otion policy as it existed prior to osed erate after xure year ean f the has t for e no or to MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 2018-19 after the punishme 17.12.20 he becam the the the po no 23. The judg present c 24. Learned judgmen Bank an ser by pr rec ser Ru br the 024 (O&M) 19 reflects that the consideration fo er the rigour of punishment is ove nishment ends on 16.12.2017, since th .12.2017, the case of the petitioner wa became wholly eligible on that day. The contention of learned the petitioner was not eligible as o the clause of the promotion policy the year 2018-19 onwards, cannot policy of 2018-19 onwards specifi not apply to 2017-18. e judgment cited at bar would therefo esent case, which has to be examined o earned counsel for the respondent/w gment of Supreme Court in Rani k and others(supra), wherein it was h “36. There is no doubt that p service record are relevant to determ by the DPC. But to debar a candidat promotion, on the basis of punishm record would require the necessary pr service Rules. There is no such pro Rules. 37. In B.V. Sivaiah (supra), th broad contours defining the term “b the following words: “We thus arrive at th criterion of ‘seniority-cum-m tion for promotion would only occur is over. Thus, when the rigour of ince the vacancy was available as on ner was required to be considered as arned counsel for the appellant that le as on 1st of April, 2017, relying on policy which has come into force for cannot be accepted as the promotion specifically is prospective and would therefore have no application to the ined on the facts of the case alone. dent/writ petitioner has relied on ani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin it was held as under: at punishment and adverse termine the minimum merit didate, to be considered for nishment or unsatisfactory ry provision in the statutory provision under the 1998 , this Court laid down the “bare minimum merit” in at the conclusion that the merit’ in the matter of ccur r of as on ed as that g on e for otion ould o the d on in MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 de the tim 2(e jud Di off pe M sea ap He vie be co wa co wa im 024 (O&M) promotion postulates that necessary merit requisite administration, the senior, meritorious, shall have prior assessment of merit is not req assessing the minimum necessa authority can lay down the mi required and also prescribe the merit of the employee who is el for promotion. Such assessm assigning marks on the b performance on the basis o interview and prescribing the would entitle a person to be p seniority-cum-merit.” From the above, it beco determination of the bare minimum cr the DPC and cannot be taken-over by time of determining the eligibility of 2(e). 38. The reliance placed by M judgment of this court in the c Dixit(supra) is also misconceived. In officer had been considered for pendency of the departmental pr Management Grade II. However, the sealed cover. After finalization of appellants requested the authority to He was, however, informed that he c view of the bank Circular dated 28th been punished. Subsequently, again considered for promotion in Septemb was denied consideration for prom conditions contained in Circular date was submitted on behalf of the appella imposed upon the staff of the Bank can hat given the minimum isite for efficiency of nior, even though less riority and a comparative t required to be made. For essary merit, the competent e minimum standard that is e the mode of assessment of is eligible for consideration essment can be made by e basis of appraisal of is of service record and the minimum marks which be promoted on the basis of becomes clear that the m criteria is the function of r by the management at the of a candidate under Rule y Mr. Dhruv Mehta on the e case of Ram Ashish . In the aforesaid case, the for promotion during the l proceedings to Middle r, the result was kept in a of the proceedings, the y to open the sealed cover. he can not be promoted in 8th March, 1998 as he had gain his case was to be tember, 1999. However, he promotion in view of the dated 28th March, 1998. It pellants that the punishment 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 ine is be inc ap pu for ha 28 Ci in an M No en rec ha cu loc co be 024 (O&M) ineligibility for promotion since the e is prescribed under the RRB Rules, 19 behalf of the bank (respondent therein increment for 3 years is a punishm appellants, during the period, he punishment, he could not have been c for promotion. Therefore, according t had been rightly held to be ineligibl 28th March, 1998. It was also claime Circular is supplementary in nature an in any manner inconsistent and ultra answering the rival submissions, this C “The criteria for pr Manager Grade-I to Middle M on the basis of the seniorit therefore, the fact that the punished for a misconduct, th part of his record of service wh consideration while adjudging criteria of seniority-cum-merit of his record of service the app it cannot be said to be by way non- promotion on account reaching a suitable standard basis of the criteria.” 39. We also do not find any me Mr. Dhruv Mehta that the Circular No November, 2009 and Circular dated ensure that the individual members recommend for promotion an indi having been punished in the prec curtailment of the power of the D located in the statutory service rules. contain any such provision. The sub be stated, to be rejected. We also do n the eligibility for promotion s, 1988. It was submitted on erein) that since stoppage of ishment imposed upon the he would be undergoing en considered to be eligible ing to the bank, respondent igible under Circular dated laimed by the bank that the re and can not be said to be ultra vires of the rules. In this Court held as under:- promotion from Junior le Management Grade-II is iority- cum-merit. Clearly the appellant has been ct, the same would form a e which would be taken into ging his suitability on the erit. If on such assessment e appellant is not promoted, way of punishment. It is a unt of the appellant not ard to be promoted on the y merit in the submission of r No.17 of 2009 dated 30th ted 12th July, 2010 are to bers of the DPC do not individual officer despite preceding 5 years. Such e DPC would have to be les. The 1998 Rules do not submission needs merely to 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 su gu gr as pe pr mi en is co DP ap tak off ac Di pu ra an wi un fro als wi pu ce Th em to the 25. Howeve during th punished 024 (O&M) submission of Mr. Mehta that w guidelines, an officer, even though, he gross misconduct would have to be pe as no minimum marks are prescr performance appraisal. In our opin presume that under the 1998 Rules, o minimum marks in the written exam entitled to be promoted on the basis o is no warrant for such a presump committed by eligible employee/office DPC to take into consideration at th appraisal. The past conduct of an em taken into consideration in adjudgin officer for performing the duties of the 40. There is another very accepting the submissions made b Different rules/regulations of the punishments such as “withholding of rank, lowering in ranks/pay scales another range of penalty such a withholding of increments etc. whic under various staff regulations. To d from being considered for promotion also inflicting on such employee withholding of promotion. In su punishment of censure/ reprimand w censure/reprimand + 5 years debar Thus the circulars issued by the employees from being considered wo to the statutory rules. The circulars cl the ratio in Sant Ram’s case (supra) owever, we are of firm view that a pe ring the pendency of a punishment nished with stopping of increments for at without the aforesaid h, he has been punished for e permitted to be promoted escribed for interview or opinion, it is fallacious to les, once an officer gets the examination, he would be sis of seniority alone. There sumption. The misconduct fficer would be a matter for at the time of performance n employee can always be dging the suitability of the f the higher post. ery good reason for not e by Mr. Dhruv Mehta. he banks provide specific g of promotion, reduction in cales”. However, there is h as censure, reprimand, which are also prescribed To debar such an employee otion would tantamount to oyee, the punishment of such circumstances, a nd would, in fact, read as ebarment from promotion. the bank debarring such would be clearly contrary rs clearly do not fall within ra).” at a person cannot earn a promotion hment order. If a person has been nts for a particular period, he cannot otion been nnot MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 be grant would be 26. In Union 4 SCC 10 ho of to pu sh We pr da On rew pe em c so To em mi ad em pa dif ma ex em for Wh the pe fur 024 (O&M) granted promotion during that perio uld be entitled for increment. Both the nion of India and others vs. K.V. Ja C 109, the Supreme Court observed “29. According to us, the T holding that when an officer is found of his duties, an imposition of penalty to improve his conduct and to enforc purity in the administration. In the fir short of dismissal will vary from reduc We are sure that the Tribunal has promotion should be given to the of date even when the penalty imparted On principle, for the same reasons, rewarded by promotion as a matter penalty is other than that of the employee has no right to promotion. H considered for promotion. The promo so, to a selection post, depends upon To qualify for promotion, the least employee is to have an unblemishe minimum expected to ensure a administration and to protect the employee found guilty of a miscondu par with the other employees and his differently. There is, therefore, no disc matter of promotion, he is treated diffe expected of any administration is tha employee with promotion retrospecti for his conduct before that date he is When an employee is held guilty therefore, not promoted at least till t penalised, he cannot be said to hav further penalty on that account. A den t period, because on promotion, he oth the things cannot go together. .V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) served as under: he Tribunal has erred in und guilty in the discharge nalty is all that is necessary force discipline and ensure e first instance, the penalty eduction in rank to censure. has not intended that the e officer from the original rted is of reduction in rank. ons, the officer cannot be atter of course even if the the reduction in rank. An n. He has only a right to be omotion to a post and more pon several circumstances. ast that is expected of an ished record. That is the a clean and efficient the public interests. An nduct cannot be placed on d his case has to be treated discrimination when in the differently. The least that is that it does not reward an ectively from a date when e is penalised in praesenti. ilty and penalised and is, till the date on which he is have been subjected to a denial of promotion in such , he 91) MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 cir of pr co pe de un co em de ho is pr au of sa pa as 27. Having petitione on accou required lost its e on 17.12 take into punishme 28. It is sett anyone a individua aspects a 024 (O&M) circumstances is not a penalty but a of his conduct. In fact, while consid promotion his whole record has consideration and if a promotion penalties imposed upon the employee denies him the promotion, such den unjustified. If,further, the promoting consideration the penalty or pena employee in the past while consider deny him promotion on that ground, hold that it cannot take the penalty int is imposed at a later date because proceedings, although it is for condu authority considers the promotion. Fo of the view that the Tribunal is not rig said portion of the second sub- paragr paragraph 3 of the said Memorand aside the said findings of the Tribunal. ving considered the law as above, w titioner could not have been promoted account of currency of his punishm uired to be considered afresh after th t its effect i.e. from 17.12.2017 onwa 17.12.2017, and the Promotion Comm e into consideration his record as on 1 nishment, which lost its relevancy. is settled law that the Courts would no yone as promoted from a particular d ividual not only requires considerati pects also. ut a necessary consequence nsidering an employee for has to be taken into tion committee takes the oyee into consideration and denial is not illegal and ing authority can take into penalties awarded to an sidering his promotion and und, it will be irrational to y into consideration when it use of the pendency of the nduct prior to the date the For these reasons, we are ot right in striking down the ragraph after clause (iii) of randum. We, therefore, set unal.” ve, we find that the respondent/writ omoted with effect from 14.08.2017 unishment. However, his case was fter the currency of the punishment onwards. Vacancy was available as Committee would therefore have to as on 17.12.2017 ignoring the minor ould not themselves direct or declare cular date, because promotion of an ideration of his eligibility but other /writ 2017 was ment le as ve to inor clare f an other MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1284-2024 29. In view the exten promotio appellant against minor p promotio However 30. The app 31. Complia hencefor 32. All pend 21.01.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether 024 (O&M) view thereof, we set aside the order extent of declaring entitlement of omotion with effect from 17.12.201 pellant to now consider the case of ainst the vacancy available as on 1 nor punishment order supra. If the omotion, the same shall be ordered wever, his pay would be fixed notiona he appeal is accordingly disposed of w ompliance of this order shall be done w nceforth. ll pending applications stand disposed (SANJE (ME ether speaking/reasoned? Ye ether reportable? Ye order passed by the Single Judge to nt of respondent/writ petitioner for 2.2017, and instead we direct the ase of the petitioner for promotion on 17.12.2017, after ignoring the If the petitioner is found fit for ed with consequential benefits. otionally. d of with aforesaid directions. done within a period of three months posed of. ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ge to r for t the otion the t for efits. nths MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document