IMPORTANT POINTS
When an employee is completely exonerated and is not visited with the penalty even of censure indicating thereby that he was not blameworthy in the least, he should not be deprived of any benefit including the salary of the promotional post. But in the instant case, the applicant was not exonerated altogether. It is already observed by us that the action taken by the disciplinary authority in imposing the punishment of censure is not to be interfered with. An officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if the penalty is other than that of reduction in rank because an employee has no right to promotion. He has only a right to be considered for promotion. The promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. That is the minimum expected to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interests.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok Menon, J.

OP (CAT) No.524/2012 is filed by one Cherian Kurian, who was the Asst. Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('ESI Corporation', for short), Bangalore, is the applicant in OA No.538/2011 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short), Ernakulam Bench. OP(CAT) No.3686/2011 is filed by the Secretary, Labour and Employment, Government of India and others, who were the respondents in aforesaid OA No.538/2011. Both the petitions arise from the same Order.

2. It was alleged that, Cherian Kurian while working as Asst. Regional Director of ESI Corporation, Bangalore intentionally and with mala fide intention reduced the amount of contribution dues from Rs.1,47,581/-to Rs.7,145/-in respect of M./s.Laxmi Boilers (South) Pvt. Ltd. by ignoring the interest of the ESI Corporation exhibiting lack of integrity and devotion to duty, consequent to which Annexure-A2 charge was framed against him for his alleged conduct unbecoming of an employee of the ESI Corporation, violating Rule 3(1) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with Regulation 23 of the ESIC (Staff and Condition of Service) Regulations, 1959.

3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the enquiry authority vide report dated 17.9.2003 exonerated him from all the charges. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the report of the enquiry authority and a disagreement memo was issued to the applicant on 31.3.2005. After granting him opportunity to file objections and hearing him, a punishment of censure was imposed on him on 25.6.2005. The statutory appeal filed by him was dismissed on 15.5.2008 and thereafter, a revision filed by him too was not entertained.

4. The applicant claims that he was discharging quasi-judicial function under Section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('Act' for short). The orders passed by him concerning M/s.Laxmi Boilers were after consultation with and approval of his superior, the then Regional Director. Hence the order imposing penalty is assailed.

5. The applicant further states that though he was entitled to be promoted as Deputy Director w.e.f. 6.10.1997, he was promoted only on 29.3.2007 and was superseded by many other juniors to him in service, from 1997 onwards, for the sole reason that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. According to the applicant, the disciplinary proceedings were procrastinated without justifiable reasons. The DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) which met on 4.1.1997 did not consider him for promotion

6. The facts in the matter dealt with by the applicant resulting in punitive action against him, in brief are thus:

Based on a report of inspection in respect of M/s. Laxmi Boilers (South) Pvt. Ltd., notice was issued to the employer on 28.4.1994 claiming a sum of Rs.1,47,581/-on omitted wages for the period 10/89 to 3/92 giving the employer an opportunity of being heard, if he so desired, on 18.5.1994. However, the employer did not turn up and the branch submitted the case file with noting on 19.5.1994 for passing orders under Section 45A of the Act. After obtaining approval from the Regional Director final order was also passed on 27.5.1994 by the applicant exercising his functions as a quasi-judicial authority. It was after the issuance of the order on 27.5.1994 that the employer allegedly made a request on 3.6.1994 for hearing as he could not appear on 18.5.1994 due to some unavoidable circumstances. The applicant thereafter made a fresh proposal on 14.6.1994 to the Regional Director for approval, in which he has stated that the employer's representative one Raveendran had met him on 19.5.1994 and requested for a fresh hearing, but, inadvertently that request was overlooked and final orders passed on 27.5.1994, and hence, the final order may be cancelled and the employer be heard again. That request of the applicant was approved by the Regional Director on 14.6.1994 and consequently the e