IMPORTANT POINT
There can be no discrimination in matter of grant of promotion.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises from an order in a contempt case wherein the Division Bench refused to entertain the petition, finding that in the context of the prayers made before the writ court, the submission that the retrospective promotion directed in the LPA should relate back to the date on which the appellant’s immediate junior was promoted, was clearly unfair. The order in the LPA from which the contempt petition arose, issued a mandamus categorically directing consideration of consequential benefits of writ petitioner including consideration of her case for promotion with retrospective effect, after setting aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated with a delay of about 10 years, which proceeding was also conducted in total violation of the principles governing departmental proceedings.

3. We are of the view that the Division Bench egregiously erred in rejecting the contempt petition. Considering the long pendency as also the fact that the appellant is now retired, we were inclined to consider the merits of the claim made before the contempt court, for which a brief reference to the background facts is absolutely necessary.

4. The appellant was working as a BDO in the Jharkhand State Administrative Service and while posted at Chandwa Block noticed improper entries in the cash book for which proceedings were taken against the Nazir of the Block, twice, and it was also reported to the Deputy Commissioner. On her transfer, she properly handed over charge to her successor and entrusted the cash book with the correct entries. Later, the Audit Team of the office of the Accountant General conducting an audit raised an objection with respect to an excess payment of Rs.5,60,000/- pointing out that it could be a misappropriation. Based on the objection raised the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar looked into the matter and categorically found that there was no reason to find embezzlement and the money expended was within the estimated cost. The State Audit Team accepted the said report on 17.07.2009. The appellant uninterruptedly continued in service and was also given due promotions.

5. Much later, on 25.05.2017, a charge-sheet was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar relating to the embezzlement pointed out as an objection by the Audit Team of the office of the Accountant General. An order was also passed imposing the punishment of withholding three increments with effect from 15.10.2019. The appellant challenged the same before the High Court in which it was found that the allegation in the charge-sheet regarding interpolations in the cash book was properly explained by the appellant. It was also observed that the State led no evidence in the departmental enquiry to prove the charge and the enquiry officer merely relied on some documents produced which were not marked or proved. Relying on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 the departmental proceedings were set aside in toto. Reliance was also placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Another, 1990 (Supp.) SCC 738 to further fault the State for having initiated proceedings after a lapse of about 10 years. The alleged objection of the Audit Team was raised on 27.07.2007, which was properly explained and verified to be not a defalcation, while the departmental proceedings on the same issue was initiated on 25.05.2017. The Division Bench, according to us rightly set aside the entire departmental proceedings including the penalty imposed and directed consideration of her promotion with retrospective effect and all consequential benefits.

6. Before us learned counsel for the appellant specifically pointed out the seniority list as produced at Annexure P1 indicates the appellant at serial no.733. The claim of the appellant is that the appellant ought to have been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary on the date on which her immediate junior at serial no.734, Mrs. Uma Mahato was promoted. As per Anne