Back
A. S. SUPEHIA, GITA GOPI
Radha Raman Tiwari S/o Late Balmukund Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Bank Of Baroda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent stems out from the judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the captioned writ petition, filed by the appellant – original petitioner.
2. The appellant had filed the writ petition claiming promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager. It is the case of the appellant that his juniors are promoted to the said post however, the respondent-Bank did not promote him on the said post at the relevant time due to want of vigilance clearance as per Regulation No.11.4 of the Promotion Policy of the respondent-Bank dated 03.02.2015.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The established facts from the pleadings are that the appellant, who was working as Assistant General Manager was considered for the promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager by the Departmental Promotion Committee, which held the interview on 25.04.2016. The name of the appellant was selected and he was placed at Serial No.48 of the waiting list.
4. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 09.06.2016 was issued to the appellant alleging major lapses and irregularities in the N.P.A. Acc
An employee's promotion cannot be denied based on vigilance clearance if no departmental proceedings were pending at the time of selection, and expiration of the waiting list does not negate the righ....
Denial of promotion based solely on pending criminal proceedings constitutes unjust punishment, especially when trials are unduly delayed.
Exclusion of an officer from a promotion list due to pending vigilance cases is lawful under regulatory provisions, and subsequent acquittals do not retroactively influence prior decisions made by pr....
No contempt where department denies vigilance clearance and applies sealed cover for promotion due to pending criminal charge-sheet, acting per High Court liberty and law on DPC date, despite vacancy....
Imposition of a minor penalty of censure does not justify blocking consideration for promotion for three years under the sealed cover procedure.
Indefinite withholding of promotion due to pending vigilance proceedings is unjust, and employees have a right to timely consideration for promotion, even when criminal proceedings are ongoing.
The High Court affirmed that an employee under investigation for misconduct is ineligible for promotion unless cleared, and the Tribunal improperly directed promotion consideration against establishe....
Executive instructions can supplement statutory rules if they are silent on an issue, and the impugned orders were found to be in the interest of public and administrative exigencies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
