An employee's denial of promotion based on disciplinary action cannot persist once the penalty is modified or set aside, establishing the right to fair consideration for promotion within established service principles.

JUDGMENT :

This Court has heard Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Senior Advocate along with Ms. Kanupriya, learned Advocate for the respondent Patna High Court.

2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Section Officer with effect from its due date i.e. on 01.01.2016, as also to the post of Assistant Registrar w.e.f. 05.02.2019 and further to the post of Deputy Registrar w.e.f. 30.01.2021, the date on which other identical situated persons/contemporaries have been promoted to such post. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the respondents concerned to extend the benefit of promotion in the higher scale by way of 2^nd ACP w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and MACP w.e.f. 01.07.2020 to which the petitioner is entitled to upon completion of more than 20 years and 30 years of service respectively, reckoning from his date of joining. The petitioner finally sought a direction to hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in para.1 of the writ petition and whereupon grant notional/monetary benefits admissible to him in accordance with law.

3. The petitioner was duly appointed as an Assistant on 28.06.1990 in Patna High Court after following the due selection procedure in furtherance of advertisement. In course of service, on replacement of one Ejaz Ahmad, the petitioner was posted in his place as an Assistant in LPA Section on 01.06.2011. In the meanwhile, a learned Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 18.03.2011 in L.P.A. No. 473 of 2011 issued notice to the respondent through Court process for final disposal of the Appeal and on the point of Limitation, which was made returnable on 29.04.2011. Notwithstanding the order of this Court, notice could not be served, which led to issuance of show-cause explanation from the Section Officer in the matter of causing delay of 2 ½ years in notifying the matter to the Court. The Section Officer was asked for explanation regarding inaction of the Registry, who in turn directed the petitioner to submit explanation; accordingly, the petitioner tendered his explanation. Learned Division bench of this Court on Judicial side was pleased to direct the Registrar General to make further enquiry and place the report before the Hon’ble Chief Justice. In the meantime, L.P.A. No. 473 of 2011 came to be dismissed.

4. A Memo of charge was duly framed on 25.01.2014 and served upon the petitioner directing him to submit his written statement in his defence. The petitioner offered his written statement on 05.03.2014. However, the same did not find in order and thus the petitioner was asked to furnish another written statement. The petitioner furnished a detailed written statement and presented a chain of events in chronological manner. On consideration of the written statement/explanation, the petitioner was awarded minor penalty of punishment of censure and his next increment was withheld for six months vide order dated 13.06.2014 (Annexure-P/8).

5. The petitioner immediately vide his representation dated 20.07.2015 requested to the Patna High Court on Administrative side to expunge the remark of censure and mitigate the punishment so that he could be promoted in the forthcoming year. The representation of the petitioner came to be reje