IMPORTANT POINT
Employer's obligation to follow due procedure and provide reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer before attaching a stigma to an employee's career.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. This is a peculiar case wherein, the employer has practically ignored the fundamental principles of service jurisprudence, while partly disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and attaching a stigma to the career of Petitioner which has affected his career, though he was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer of all the charges levelled against him.

3. This Petition before us is for seeking the deemed date of promotion, in terms of prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D), which read as under:

“(B) By way of appropriate writ order or direction in the like nature, this Hon’ble High Court may kindly quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 19/08/2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in proceeding bearing No. Sankirna-2022/20717/VIASHA/ASTHA-2.

(C) By way of appropriate writ order or direction in the like nature, this Hon’ble High Court may kindly direct respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to extend the deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 30/08/2007 for the post of Junior Accountant in favour of petitioner, and consequently to direct the respondent authorities to pay the difference of arrears of monetary benefits w.e.f. 30/08/2007.

(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon’ble High Court may kindly direct respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to extend the deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 30/08/2007 for the post of Junior Accountant in favour of petitioner, and consequently to direct the respondent authorities to pay the difference of arrears of monetary benefits w.e.f. 30/08/2007.”

4. The undisputed facts are as under:

(a) The Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 07.03.1984.

(b) On 29.08.2007, the Zilla Parishad decided to conduct a Departmental Enquiry against the Petitioner after levelling charges of negligence in duties.

(c) On 30.08.2007, Respondent No. 3 promoted two senior employees and a few junior employees to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts), ignoring the Petitioner, due to pendency of the Departmental Enquiry.

(d) On 24.06.2008, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report concluding that no charges are proved against the Petitioner.

(e) On 13.01.2009, as a consequence of his exoneration, Respondent No. 3 promoted the Petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts).

(f) Hence, the demand for the deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 30.08.2007, when juniors were promoted and the Petitioner was ignored on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.

5. The submissions of the Petitioner are that, by virtue of Clause 5 under Annexure-A to a Government Resolution dated 06.06.2002, if a Departmental Enquiry is pending and subsequently if the charge-sheeted employee is exonerated or a minor punishment is imposed, he would be entitled to the deemed date in matters of promotion. However, we are informed that the said GR has been repealed by a Notification dated 21.06.2021.

6. The Petitioner draws our attention to the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that the two charges levelled upon the Petitioner, are not proved and he has exonerated. He further points out that the order of punishment dated 05.02.2009 was passed after his promotion on 13.01.2009, wherein, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that though the charges levelled upon the Petitioner, are not proved and he is exonerated, the charges are of serious nature and therefore, he should be punished by recording a “blot” (‘thapkaa’ in Marathi, which amounts to attaching a “stigma”) on his career. For clarity, we are reproducing the conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority, as under:

7. The learned Advocate representing the Zilla Parishad submits that the Government Resolution dated 06.06.2002 has been repealed by a Notification dated 21.06.2021. He specifically draws our attention to Clause 4(5) of the said notification, which reads as under:

8. The learned Advocate further submits that, tho