The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee's eligibility for promotion can be affected by disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of punishment, and the guidelines provided in the Government Resolution dated 15.12.2017 were found to be in line with the legal principles established by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.3.2019 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 593 of 2018, coupled with prayer to declare Clause No. B in paragraph 14 of the Government Resolution dated 15.12.2017 issued by the State in its General Administration Department as arbitrary, illegal and violative of provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 20(2) of the Constitution of India with further prayer to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to promote the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from the date when incumbents under the Departmental Promotion Committee (herein after referred to as D.P.C. for brevity), meeting held on 24.4.2018 were promoted, by invoking provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The factual scenario leading to this petition in brief is as under:

The petitioner is qualified as B.E. (Civil) and working as Sub-Divisional Engineer in the office of Public Works Sub-Division (Construction), Nanded. The petitioner possesses excellent service record. According to the petitioner, by looking to his track record of service and his excellent work, he was expecting promotion. There were no complaints against him during the period from 30.6.2003 to 15.7.2005 while working as Sub-Divisional Engineer at Public Works (North) Sub-Division, Nanded. The petitioner has given details about total sanctioned strength of the Executive Engineers, promotional avenues for the promotees in paragraph 3 of the petition. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 1 has served the charge-sheet dated 7.12.2012 and slapped seven charges against him in respect of the work carried out by him at Public Works (North), Sub Division, Nanded. The petitioner was held guilty for charges no. 1, 4, 5 and 6. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment on the petitioner of stoppage of one increment for two years without any effect on future increments vide order dated 3.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved by the said punishment, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, but same came to be rejected in the month of September 2018. According to the petitioner, the State of Maharashtra in its General Administration Department has issued Circular dated 2.4.1976 empowering the competent authority to take a conscious decision to consider the employees for promotion after evaluating the nature of charges levelled against them and promote them if they are otherwise found to be eligible. Another Resolution came to be issued on 22.4.1996 by respondent no. 2 effecting slight modification in the Circular dated 2.4.1976 empowering the competent authority to secure undertaking from the Government employee facing minor punishment.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that the D.P.C. in its meeting held on 24.4.2018 discussed and considered the names of various incumbents for promotion. Twenty two officers were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, but the names of present petitioner and one Shri S.D. Mate were held ineligible as they were undergoing the minor punishment. According to the petitioner, the decision taken by the D.P.C. appears to be based on Clause-B of paragraph 14 of the Government Resolution dated 15.12.2017. According to the petitioner, the note put up before the D.P.C. makes it clear that no enquiry is pending against the petitioner and as such, the said Government Resolution is not applicable. According to the Government Resolution dated 15.12.2017, not only the Resolution dated 22.4.1996 is superseded but also kept away the petitioner from promotion for undergoing the minor punishment. It clearly violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of D.P.C. the petitioner has filed Original Application No. 593 of 2018 before the Maharashtra