SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
P. Sakthi - Appellant
Versus
The Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.30700 of 2024)
Decided on : 02-05-2025
Service Law – Promotion – Acquittal in criminal case – Departmental proceedings though entered in finding of guilt with resultant punishment imposed, same was set aside in 2009 by Government – Employee has no right to be promoted but has right to be considered when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified – Appellant must be considered for promotion, dehors any disentitlement due to his having become overaged – Consideration will be made and if found eligible, he shall be promoted from 2019 and consequential benefits also shall be paid to him, since it was not his fault that authority denied his consideration for promotion based on a punishment which had already been set aside. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, a Police Constable in service of State of Tamil Nadu is aggrieved with denial of consideration for promotion to post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Appellant who was initially appointed on 01.03.2002, was eligible for consideration in year 2019 when a notification was issued for considering eligible constables for in service promotion in 20% departmental quota
Findings of Court:
Recruitment rules provided for disentitling an in-service candidate, if they did not have a clean record of service without any punishment other than minor punishment of black mark, reprimand and/or censure. However, the appellant’s punishment was interfered with and set aside by Annexure P/4 as early as 27.11.2009. Criminal case lodged against him on the similar set of facts had also ended in his acquittal.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, a Police Constable in the service of the State of Tamil Nadu is aggrieved with the denial of consideration for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The appellant who was initially appointed on 01.03.2002, was eligible for consideration in the year 2019 when a notification was issued for considering eligible constables for in service promotion in the 20% departmental quota. The appellant applied for the same but by Annexure P/8 dated 13.04.2019, he was denied consideration since, according to the Superintendent of Police, he was disentitled as per the rules for reason of a punishment of postponement of next increment for one year without cumulative effect, imposed on 09.05.2005.
3. True, the recruitment rules provided for disentitling an in-service candidate, if they did not have a clean record of service without any punishment other than minor punishment of black mark, reprimand and/or censure. However, the appellant’s punishment was interfered with and set aside by Annexure P/4 as early as 27.11.2009. The criminal case lodged against him on the similar set of facts had also ended in his acquittal.
4. The appellant was proceeded against both departmentally and under the criminal law for allegedly having beaten up a colleague when they were posted in a check post. After duty, some dispute arose between them and there was a brawl in which the other constable was injured. This led to a criminal case being lodged in which he was arrested but later acquitted. The departmental proceedings though entered in the finding of guilt with resultant punishment imposed, the same was set aside in 2009 by the Government as is evidenced from Annexure P/4. In such circumstances, the appellant could not have been disentitled from a consideration in the year 2019. The writ petition was also filed in the year 2019. In the above circumstances we are of the opinion that the appellant must be considered for promotion, dehors any disentitlement due to his having become overaged. The consideration will be made and if found eligible, he shall be promoted from 2019 and consequential benefits also shall be paid to him, since it was not his fault that the authority denied his consideration for promotion based on a punishment which had already been set aside. It is trite that the employee has no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered, when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified; which right has been impinged, unjustly, in the above case.
5. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Promotion – Employee has no right to be promoted but has right to be considered when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified.
Promotion cannot be denied solely based on the number of past punishments without considering their nature and timing, ensuring equal treatment under Article 14.
An employee has right for consideration for promotion, but has no right to ask promotion as a matter of course
The penalty of censure does not bar promotion based on seniority-cum-merit criteria, allowing reconsideration for the post of Superintendent of Police.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner, fully exonerated from a minor punishment, is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date when his juniors were promote....
An employee acquitted of charges is entitled to consideration for promotion from the date of eligibility, despite prior disciplinary proceedings, upholding the principle of just treatment in administ....
Denial of promotion based on mere inquiry without formal charges is arbitrary and violates the right to be considered for promotion under Article 16(1).
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.