Legal Analysis on Delayed Promotion and Disciplinary Action

Explore the detailed legal analysis provided by the court in a significant case concerning delayed promotion and disciplinary action. The court’s examination of the absence of disciplinary proceedings, justification for keeping the appellant’s candidature in a sealed cover, and the implications of the delayed departmental action provide valuable insights into the legal intricacies of administrative decisions. Stay tuned to learn more about the court’s findings and their impact on the case.

Facts

• The appellant, an IFS Officer of 1987 Batch, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, challenging the decision to keep his candidature in a sealed cover during the DPC held on 12 May, 2020.
• Despite being eligible for promotion to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the appellant’s candidature remained sealed while a junior officer was promoted on 4 September, 2020.
• The appellant sought a mandamus to open the sealed cover and requested further orders in accordance with the law.
• No departmental inquiry for minor or major penalties has been initiated against the appellant under the Rules 1969.
• The High Court dismissed the review petition against the Tribunal’s order, and further challenges were raised pertaining to the delay in departmental action.
• Central Administrative Tribunal examined appellant’s complaint and found no departmental enquiry under Rules 1969
• Tribunal ordered authorities to open sealed cover and implement DPC recommendations of 12 May, 2020
• Directed respondents to provide all consequential benefits to the appellant

Also Read: From Nominee to Disqualified: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Age Evidence, Declares Election Invalid

Analysis

• No disciplinary enquiry has been instituted or pending against the appellant as of the date when the DPC met on 12 May, 2020.
• The show cause notice served on the appellant on 22 April, 2016 is pending as he challenged it in an Original Application before the Tribunal.
• The absence of disciplinary proceedings under Rules 1969 precludes proposing any penalty against the appellant.
• The State Authorities have not initiated any disciplinary action for imposing penalties against the appellant.
• Union Public Service Commission referred the matter back to the State Authorities due to deficiencies in the disciplinary case against the appellant.
• Detailed response was submitted by the appellant to the show cause notice, but no further action has been taken by the respondents so far.
• The disciplinary rules provide schedules of penalties and procedures for imposing minor/major penalties, which have not been followed in this case.
• Before a disciplinary enquiry can be initiated, proposing a punishment under Rule 6 of the Rules 1969 is not permissible.
• No disciplinary enquiry has been instituted or pending against the appellant as per the Rules 1969.
• The DPC held on 12 May, 2020 kept the appellant’s candidature in a sealed cover and promoted a junior person on 4 September, 2020 without justification.
• Inflicting a penalty on the appellant is not warranted given the lack of a pending disciplinary enquiry.
• The defence of the respondents that the appellant’s OA before the Tribunal prevented them from concluding the disciplinary enquiry is deemed a weak excuse.
• No adverse presumption should be made regarding the delay in initiating the departmental enquiry due to the appellant’s OA.

Also Read: Auction Upheld Despite Delay: Borrowers’ Conduct Shows Intent to Stall, Not Valid Reason for Cancellation

Decision

• The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover of the DPC held on 12 May, 2020 for the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCS) pertaining to the appellant.
• Further orders are to be passed in accordance with the law, along with all consequential benefits as per the Tribunal’s order.
• Compliance with the directions should be made within two months, and no costs are to be charged for this judgement.
• Any pending applications are to be disposed of as well.
• The orders of the High Court dated 28 April, 2022 and 8 July, 2022 are set aside, leading to the success of the appeals.

Also Read: Exemption from Enhanced Power Tariff: Withdrawal of Concession based on Date of Energisation

Case Title: DR. AJIT KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2022 INSC 1132)

Case Number: C.A. No.-007805-007806 / 2022

Click here to read/download original judgement