1. Promotion dispute — Omission from select list due to minor punishments imposed following disciplinary proceedings — Challenge to non-inclusion in promotion panel. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 280
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : J.Jagannadha Rao
Collector Of Thanjavur Distt.
Versus
S.Rajagopalan
Case No. : 3401 of 1993
Date of Decision : 2/3/00
Important Points
Denial of promotion due to the imposition of a penalty is a necessary consequence of an employee's conduct and does not constitute a second penalty or double jeopardy, as employees have only a right to be considered for promotion, not a right to be promoted.
Subject
Service Law - Promotion and Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Promotion - Consideration of penalties - Denial of promotion due to the imposition of minor punishments is not a second penalty or double jeopardy - Promoting authority is entitled to take into account the penalty or penalties awarded to an employee in the past while considering promotion (Paras 6, 7).
(B) Right to Promotion - An employee has no right to promotion, but only a right to be considered for promotion - Promotion to a selection post depends on several circumstances, including the requirement of an unblemished record to ensure clean and efficient administration (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
Employees working as Assistants were excluded from a select list for promotion to a higher cadre on the ground that minor punishments, specifically stoppage of increments, had been imposed on them following disciplinary enquiries. The Tribunal had directed that their cases for inclusion in the list be considered uninfluenced by the minor punishments, holding that taking such punishments into account would amount to double jeopardy.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal was in error in concluding that considering minor punishments during the merit assessment for promotion constitutes double jeopardy.
Issues: Whether the exclusion of employees from a promotion panel due to the imposition of minor punishments amounts to a second punishment or violates the rule against double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an employee has no inherent right to promotion, only a right to be considered. For selection posts, an unblemished record is a minimum expectation. Denial of promotion following a penalty is a necessary consequence of the employee's conduct and not a further penalty. Consequently, the promoting authority can legally consider penalties imposed on an employee when determining fitness for promotion. (Para 6)
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Right to Promotion - An employee has no right to promotion, but only a right to be considered for promotion - Promotion to a selection post depends on several circumstances, including the requirement of an unblemished record to ensure clean and efficient administration (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
Employees working as Assistants were excluded from a select list for promotion to a higher cadre on the ground that minor punishments, specifically stoppage of increments, had been imposed on them following disciplinary enquiries. The Tribunal had directed that their cases for inclusion in the list be considered uninfluenced by the minor punishments, holding that taking such punishments into account would amount to double jeopardy.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal was in error in concluding that considering minor punishments during the merit assessment for promotion constitutes double jeopardy.
Issues: Whether the exclusion of employees from a promotion panel due to the imposition of minor punishments amounts to a second punishment or violates the rule against double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an employee has no inherent right to promotion, only a right to be considered. For selection posts, an unblemished record is a minimum expectation. Denial of promotion following a penalty is a necessary consequence of the employee's conduct and not a further penalty. Consequently, the promoting authority can legally consider penalties imposed on an employee when determining fitness for promotion. (Para 6)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether considering minor punishments for the purpose of promotion constitutes double jeopardy or a second punishment. (Para 4 )
3. Promotion requires an unblemished record; treating an employee found guilty of misconduct differently from others is not discriminatory but a necessity for efficient administration. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Denial of promotion based on penalties imposed for misconduct is not a penalty or double jeopardy, but a necessary consequence of the employee's conduct. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal allowed — Tribunal's direction set aside — Authority permitted to consider minor punishments for promotion and review subsequent promotions. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Does the denial of promotion due to a penalty imposed in disciplinary proceedings constitute double jeopardy?
No. Denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of the employee's conduct. An employee has no right to promotion, only a right to be considered, and a clean record is expected for selection. (Para 6 )
7. Can a promoting authority consider past minor punishments when evaluating an employee for a selection post?
Yes. The promoting authority can take into consideration penalties awarded in the past or those imposed later for conduct prior to the promotion consideration to ensure clean and efficient administration. (Para 6 )
8. What is the legal right of an employee regarding promotion to a selection post?
An employee has no inherent right to promotion; they only possess a right to be considered for promotion. Selection depends on various circumstances, including the requirement of an unblemished record. (Para 6 )
(1) THIS is an appeal filed by the Collector of District, the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu. There are five respondents in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that we are not concerned with the 5th respondent. The order which we propose to pass will therefore apply to respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
(2) THE writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 4 in the High Court of Madras the same being transferred to the Administrative Tribunal of Tamil Nadu. The writ petitioners were working as Assistants. The question of their promotion as Deputy Tahsildars was in issue before the Tribunal. The list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982 was drawn by the Collector Thanjavur on 7.2.1983 and the said list did not contain the names of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal). Their names were omitted on the ground that minor punishment was imposed on them consequent to disciplinary enquiry. The punishment which was inflicted on them was stoppage of increments. At the time of considering the cases of the above four Assistants, the Collector excluded their names in the list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982. Their names were omitted on the ground that punishments were imposed against them during the anterior period.
(3) THE respondents questioned the non-inclusion of their names in the panel before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed their petition and issued a direction that the case of the writ petitioners for inclusion in the list of Deputy Tahsildars should be considered uninfluenced by the minor punishment inflicted on them and that if by such consideration they were found fit for inclusion in the list, suitable place be allotted to them in the list of seniority for the cadre. Against the above said direction this appeal has been preferred by the Collector, Thanjavur and Special Commissioner.
(4) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal was in error in thinking that the non-inclusion of the respondents (writ petitioners) in the above select list of Deputy Tahsildars would amount to a second punishment on them. The Tribunal felt that minor punishments could not be taken into consideration while considering their case for inclusion in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that this view of the Tribunal is incorrect in view of the decision of this Court in Union of Indian & Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors.
(5) THE respondents have been served notice but they have not chosen to appear personally or through counsel. We are, therefore, compelled to dispose of this appeal treating them as ex-parte.
(6) WE are of the view that the Tribunal was in error in thinking that if the minor punishments inflicted on the respondents were taken into consideration at the time of considering their merit for the purpose of inclusion in the list of Deputy Tahsildars, that would amount to double jeopardy. In our opinion the said view expressed by the Tribunal is clearly contrary to the legal position in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors. This Court held that:
"28. The Tribunal has also struck down the following portion in the second Subparagraph after clause (Hi) of paragraph 3 which reads as follows: "If any penalty is imposed on the officer as result of the disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the court proceedings against him, the findings in the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon" and has directed that if the proceedings result in a penalty, the person concerned should be considered for promotion in a Review DPC as on the original date in the light of the results of the sealed cover as also the imposition of penalty, and his claim for promotion cannot be deferred for the subsequent DPCs as provided in the instructions. It may be pointed out that the said sub-paragraph directs that "the officers case for promotion may be cons
