1. Disciplinary proceedings initiated after long delay and subsequently set aside — claim for retrospective promotion and consequential benefits relative to a junior officer. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1718
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, CJI., K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Jyotshna Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12184 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15932 of 2024)
Decided On : 22-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, AOR Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchira Gupta Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv. Ms. Pooja Tripathi, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, AOR Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchira Gupta Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv. Ms. Pooja Tripathi, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
There can be no discrimination in matter of grant of promotion.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt petition – Rejection – Even according to State, denial of consideration of appellant was only on account of punishment imposed – Punishment imposed together with entire departmental proceedings have been set aside for reason of proceedings itself being a sham proceeding and also for reason of long delay in initiation of proceeding with respect to allegation of about 10 years in past – Punishment has been set aside and departmental proceeding found to be in violation of established principles – Consequential benefits including retrospective promotion was directed – Appellant should be considered for promotion from the date on which her immediate junior was considered in DPC – State ought to have promoted appellant to post of Joint Secretary, on the date on which her immediate junior was promoted, giving her relaxation in minimum experience for consideration for promotion. (Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Appeal arises from an order in a contempt case wherein the Division Bench refused to entertain petition, finding that in the context of prayers made before the writ court, submission that retrospective promotion directed in the LPA should relate back to the date on which appellant’s immediate junior was promoted, was clearly unfair.
Findings of Court:
State shall be free to recover additional liability of interest from such officers/employees occasioning delay after issuing notice and taking appropriate proceedings against said officers/employees.
Result : Appeal allowed with directions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. State contends minimum service requirements and ineligibility for relaxation due to punishment during DPC; appellant seeks promotion parity with immediate junior. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Setting aside sham and delayed proceedings restores eligibility; parity with junior promoted via relaxation must be extended to the appellant. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. When disciplinary proceedings and punishments are set aside as void or sham, the employee is entitled to retrospective promotion and parity with juniors. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal allowed — direction for retrospective promotion from the date junior was promoted, payment of arrears, and pension refixation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. What is the effect on promotion eligibility when disciplinary proceedings and the resulting punishment are set aside?
When proceedings are set aside as sham or due to excessive delay, the employee is entitled to consequential benefits, including retrospective promotion from the date they would have been considered but for the proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. Can an employee claim relaxation in minimum service requirements for promotion if a junior was granted such relaxation?
Yes, if the only reason for denying the employee's consideration was a punishment that was subsequently set aside, the employee is entitled to the same relaxation granted to their junior to ensure parity. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. Are retired employees entitled to financial benefits resulting from a retrospective promotion granted after retirement?
Yes, retired employees are entitled to arrears of pay and allowances and the refixation of their pension based on the last pay drawn in the retrospectively promoted post. (Para 10 )
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
