IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 14th September, 1992, regarding the findings of the sealed cover and the imposition of penalties, should be interpreted in a manner that does not unjustly withhold the benefit of promotion from a government servant who has been recommended for promotion.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner, who is presently holding the post of Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force. The petitioner initially joined his services as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant. During his service career, there were several representations filed by the writ petitioner for promotion, which were overlooked by the authorities. A departmental enquiry was instituted against the writ petitioner in the year 2009. The departmental enquiry concluded finally on 31.12.2013. The enquiry committee recommended the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for 2 years without curtailing the increment of pay. Subsequently, the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short DPC) recommended the petitioner for promotion on 22.06.2015. However, the promotion was subsequently given effect to with effect from 01.01.2016. The petitioner was found fit and recommended by the DPC for promotion on 22.06.2015. His promotion, however, was given with effect from 01.01.2016. Being aggrieved, the petitioner represented before the authorities concerned. The said application was subsequently rejected. Being aggrieved, he has approached this Court praying for appropriate reliefs.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had accepted the punishment imposed on him which was “stoppage of two increments for 2 years.” He submits that during the period the petitioner was undergoing the penalty, his case was considered for promotion to the next higher rank and the DPC had recommended the petitioner for promotion on 22.06.2015. But the effect of the promotion was given only from 01.01.2016 on the ground that the petitioner did not complete the period of penalty.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner referring to the Office Memorandum dated 10th October, 1962 submits that where the reduction is for a specified period and is not to operate, to postpone, further increment, the seniority of the Government servant may, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise, must be fixed in the higher service, grade, or post or the higher time scale at what it would have been but for his reduction.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this provision of the office memorandum is also reflected in subsequent office memorandums, which is 03.07.1986. It is submitted that unless the terms of the order of punishment otherwise provide, the seniority of the Government Servants may be fixed in the higher service, of grade, or post or in the higher scale at what it would have been but for his reduction. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Union of India and Another vs. S.C. Parashar, (2006) 3 SCC 167. He submits that in this case the Apex Court has held that the penalty imposed on the Government Servant should be restricted to that extent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that if the seniority is not granted to the petitioner in terms from the date his promotion was recommended, it will amount to double jeopardy as the penalty that was imposed on the petitioner was to the effect of loss of two increments for 2 years. There was no penalty in respect of the petitioner for loss of his seniority. However, the inaction of the respondent department in refusing to issue necessary orders for promotion, with effect from the date of recommendation will have the effect of loss of seniority for the period in question. He, therefore, submits that the respondents be directed to give him the benefit of his promotion as well as the seniority with effect from the date of his recommendation for promotion, namely, 22.06.2015.

7. Per Contra, Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC strongly disputes the