September 7, 2026 Sl. No.A 4 Court No.1 s.biswas WPCT 23 of 2022 Union of India and others vs. Ram Mohan Mandal Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Standing Counsel Ms. Rashmi Bothra Ms. Surabhi Banerjee ... for the petitioners Mr. Surajit Samanta Mr. Biswajit Samanta Ms. Sohini Samanta Mr. Roop Shankar Roy Mr. Subhasis Maity ... for the respondent The present writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order dated 15th July, 2021 passed in an original application (in short, OA) being OA 350/00896/2013. The said OA was preferred primarily challenging an order dated 15th June, 2010 issued by the respondent no.4 (Senior Divisional Personnel Officer) declaring that the original applicant/respondent herein, namely, Ram Mohan Mandal (in short Ram) is not entitled to promotion for the post of Sr.T.T.E. against restructuring with effect from 1st November, 2003 as per extant Railway Rules. Records would reveal that Ram was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and was imposed a punishment on 31st October, 2003 of reduction of salary with cumulative effect for five years. The said order was affirmed in a statutory appeal preferred by Ram and 2 thereafter the revision application filed by Ram was allowed, reducing the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority to reduction of pay in time scale with cumulative effect for a period of one year. In the midst thereof, Ram applied for promotion to the post of Sr.T.T.E. Such prayer was rejected by an order dated 10th May, 2007. Challenging the said order, Ram preferred an OA, being OA 1087 of 2009, which was disposed of quashing the order dated 10.05.2007 and remitting the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. Pursuant thereto, the competent authority being the respondent no.4 passed an order dated 15th June, 2010, which was again impugned in an OA being OA 350/00896/2013. The order dated 15th July, 2021 passed in the said OA has been impugned in the present writ petition. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when the promotion process was undertaken, Ram was suffering a punishment of reduction of his salary with cumulative effect for five years. In view thereof, he was declared to be ‘unsuitable’ in the provisional part result and as such his claim for promotion was rightly rejected by the respondent no.4 by an order dated 15th June, 2010. He argues that the promotion granted to one Mr. K. C. Nayak and Mr. S. K. Bhaduri did not create any right in favour of Ram to avail promotion since on the date of preparation of the select list, Ram was admittedly 3 undergoing a punishment. The reasons towards denial of promotion were elaborately discussed in the order dated 15th June, 2010, however, the learned Tribunal illegally rejected the order 15th June, 2010, terming the same to be an unreasoned one. He contends that the suitability for promotion was determined by the competent authority and as Ram failed to overcome the rigours of the suitability test, he was rightly excluded from the zone of consideration as an unsuitable candidate. Such act was neither arbitrary nor mala fide and as such the learned Tribunal erred in law in quashing the order impugned in the said OA moreso when, ordinarily there shall be no interference in the proceedings and recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India and another versus S.K. Goel and others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 641. Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for Ram, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya and submits that the initial punishment of reduction of his salary with cumulative effect was for five years. The revision application was thereafter disposed of on 31st October, 2004 reducing the punishment to one year. The tenure of such punishment was of one year from the date of imposition of the punishment on 31st October, 2003 and as such his entitlement to promotion for the post of Sr.T.T.E. 4 against restructuring with effect from 1st November, 2003 as per extant Railway Rules could not have been negated. Such infirmity was rightly interfered with by the learned Tribunal. He contends that the suitability for promotion was determined taking into consideration as to whether the incumbents were undergoing any punishment in any disciplinary proceeding. The list of eligible candidates prepared on 22nd November, 2004 would clearly reveal that Ram was declared unsuitable as he was undergoing a punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority but by the order passed in revision on 21st July, 2006 such punishment was reduced and as such Ram could not have been treated as unsuitable for promotion. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. It had been the contention of the petitioners before the learned Tribunal that since the post of Sr.T.T.E. was a non-selection post, there was no minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The preparation of the select list clearly reveals that the imposition of punishment upon Ram weighed with the authorities in declaring him to be unsuitable. However, the order of punishment was reduced subsequent to the preparation of the select list by the order passed in the revision petition restricting the punishment to one year and as such he could not have been denied promotion treating 5 him to be unsuitable. The order dated 15th June, 2010 would also reveal that in case of one Mr. K. C. Nayak and Mr. S. K. Bhaduri, the suitability was determined taking into consideration the tenure of punishment suffered by the said incumbents in the disciplinary proceedings. In the present case, admittedly the tenure of punishment was over after one year from the date of issuance of the order of the disciplinary authority and accordingly, the learned Tribunal rightly directed the petitioners to grant promotion to the Ram on notional basis with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted. The learned Tribunal upon dealing with the factual issues, arrived at specific findings and we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPCT 23 of 2022 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)