Promotion timing is contingent upon resolution of imposed penalties, emphasizing the necessity for finality in disciplinary proceedings before eligibility for promotion is considered.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J.:

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for quashing and setting aside the judgement/order dated 21.10.2020 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (in short `Tribunal'), Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 3111/2015 and consequently, for allowing the prayers made in the said OA.

2. Arguments have been heard.

3. Both the sides have also filed written submissions.

4. Our considered view is as under:

4.1. The case of the petitioner has been summed up in order of this Court dated 25.03.2021 as under:

"4. (i) the present case has a chequered history and this petition arises from the order of dismissal of fifth OA preferred by the petitioner before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi;

(ii) the petitioner was charge sheeted but the Inquiry Officer reported the charges to have not been proved; the Disciplinary Authority however disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and imposed punishment on the petitioner; on the petitioner preferring the departmental appeal, the punishment imposed was enhanced by the Appellate Authority; OA preferred by the petitioner thereagainst was allowed and the matter remanded to the Inquiring Officer, from the stage of cross-examination;

(iii) the said remanded proceedings resulted in re-imposition of the same punishment as had been imposed earlier by the Appellate Authority; in the departmental appeal, the punishment imposed was modified; the second OA preferred, was allowed and the matter remanded to the Inquiry Officer;

(iv) the said remanded proceeding again resulted in punishment, though this time a different one and the appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed; this resulted in the third OA being preferred and which was again allowed and this time the matter remanded to the Appellate Authority;

(v) the Appellate Authority passed a fresh order and against which the fourth OA was preferred, which was dismissed by CAT and the review application preferred thereagainst was also dismissed;

(vi) W.P.(C) No.8086/2014 preferred against the order aforesaid in the fourth OA was however allowed and the matter again remanded to the Disciplinary Authority;

(vii) the remanded proceedings resulted in the punishment of censure being meted out to the petitioner; the said order attained finality;

(viii) the OA from which this appeal arises, being the fifth in chronology, was preferred claiming that the petitioner ought to have been promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC), from 17th February, 2006, when his juniors were promoted but was in fact promoted with effect from 23rd November, 2016; and,

(ix) that CAT, in the impugned order has accepted the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was free from vigilance, only on 23rd November, 2016 and was not exonerated but censured prior to the same and thus no fault could be found with the promotion having been granted with effect from 23rd November, 2016."

4.2. Notice was not issued but the learned counsel for the respondents appeared on advance notice and he was heard.

4.3. The only challenge before the Tribunal was confined to the claim of the petitioner that he ought to have been promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) with effect from 17.02.2006, the date on which his junior LDCs were promoted but in the case of the petitioner, he was promoted with effect from 23.11.2016 only on the ground that in an enquiry initiated in 1999, the final order of `censure' was passed on 22.1.2016. The relevant portion of the ord