Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
T.J. Charly - Petitioner
Versus
The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited - Respondent
WP (C) Nos. 5852 of 2019, 13673 of 2014
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Employment Law - Promotion and Liability - The petitioner, previously a Junior Executive, challenged the refusal of promotion to Deputy Manager and the imposition of liability for a loss of Rs.5,11,496/- due to a burglary. The Enquiry Report found management failed to prove negligence, leading to the challenge of Ext.P13. The court concluded that the petitioner was not liable as the allegations were unproven, but denied retrospective promotion benefits based on Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 2-14)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The court emphasized that findings of an Enquiry Officer do not bind the disciplinary authority, which may reach different conclusions. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was suspended after a burglary while serving as Assistant Manager. An inquiry found no malfeasance, but the management imposed liability. The petitioner sought promotion benefits denied by the management. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The liability imposed by Ext.P13 was set aside due to lack of evidence, but the claim for retrospective promotion was dismissed based on legal principles. (Paras 9, 12-14)
Issues: The court considered the validity of the liability imposed and the entitlement to promotion as Deputy Manager. (Paras 8-9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unproven allegations cannot justify liability, and retrospective promotion is not permitted unless duties are assumed. (Paras 10-14)
Result: Liability set aside; promotion claim dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
[WP (C) Nos. 5852/2019, 13673/2014]
1. These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioner who joined the service of the respondent herein as a Junior Assistant on 18.06.1990 and promoted as a Junior Executive/Assistant Manager w.e.f. 30.04.1999 challenging:
(i) The refusal to extend his deserved promotion as a Deputy Manager w.e.f. 22.08.2007
(ii) Ext.P13 order by which, a liability of Rs.5,11,496/- is cast upon him.
2. The petitioner, as stated above was working as a Junior Executive from 30.04.1999. It is stated that on 06.09.2002, a burglary took place in the branch in which he was working as an Assistant Manager leading to the loss of an amount of Rs.5,11,496/-. The petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 11.09.2002 and Ext.P1 memo of charges was served on the petitioner to which a reply was also filed by him. An enquiry is seen to have been constituted leading to Ext.P5 13673/2014 Enquiry Report. A reference to the Enquiry Report would show that, ultimately, the Enquiry Officer found that the management has failed absolutely to prove the allegations against the petitioner herein.
3. However, in the last paragraph, there is a further finding that “he may be negligent” and further holding that the same has not constituted a violation of the Rules prevailing in the KSFE. In the meantime, a promotion was granted to various officers working in the respondent- company in 2007, wherein one of the petitioner's Juniors is stated to have been promoted as Deputy Manager. The said order dated 22.08.2007 is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C)No.13673 of 2014 wherein the promotee, alleged to be the junior of the petitioner is impleaded as the 2nd respondent.
4. The petitioner further contends that he submitted a representation to the respondent seeking the benefits which ought to have been extended to him essentially relying on the Enquiry Report and pursuant to the directions 13673/2014 issued by this Court, the matter was directed to be considered. The petitioner also relied on Ext.P11 Final Report filed by the Police, with respect to the crime registered pursuant to the burglary to contend that the petitioner was not even arrayed as an accused and the case was reported as “undetected” and hence, no further proceedings could be initiated against him. The petitioner contends that his representation was considered and Ext.P13 issued by the 1st respondent herein dated 05.01.2018, by which the petitioner is directed to make a remittance of Rs.5,11,496/- being the loss caused to the respondent-company.
5. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petitions.
6. It may straight away be noticed that the petitioner has been promoted as Deputy Manager in the year 2010, as evidenced by Ext.P17.
7. I have heard Sri.R.Sanjith, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.Pooja Menon, the learned counsel for the respondent-company. 13673/2014
8. Two issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions:
The first issue is as regards the sustainability or otherwise of the findings contained in Ext.P13 issued by the respondent-company, mulcting the liability of Rs.5,11,496/-, as already noticed. The second issue arising for consideration is as regards the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion as Deputy Manager with effect from the date on which the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.13673 of 2014 stood promoted as Deputy Manager.
9. With respect to the first issue arising for consideration, the facts are not in dispute. The proceedings at Ext.P13 have mulcted a liability of Rs.5,11,496/-, representing the loss caused to the respondent herein. The loss as above is with respect to the amount which was burgled from the branch, in which the petitioner was admittedly working as the Assistant Manager. The allegation against the petitioner is essentially to the effect that he left the keys to the cash chest in the office itself in an unsafe 13673/2014 manner, which ultimately led to the burglary. However, I notice
Unproven allegations cannot justify liability in disciplinary proceedings, and retrospective promotions are not permissible without assumption of duties.
Promotion under the IRCTC policy requires absence of disciplinary penalties; denial of promotion is a natural consequence, not a penalty itself.
Promotion cannot be denied based on mere suspicion or pending preliminary investigations; a charge sheet must be issued for such denial.
Promotion in non-selection posts must adhere to seniority without subjective merit evaluations in the absence of unsuitability, reinforcing equality rights under the Constitution.
The court emphasized that the denial of arrears of pay and notional promotion must be based on valid reasons and compliance with court orders is mandatory.
Denial of promotion based on mere inquiry without formal charges is arbitrary and violates the right to be considered for promotion under Article 16(1).
Termination without adequate evidence and disregard for fair procedures violates principles of natural justice.
Promotion processes must adhere to fairness and empathy, especially regarding unforeseen circumstances affecting employees' ability to fulfill job requirements.
The principle of double jeopardy and the inadmissibility of severe reprimand as a basis for denying promotion were established in the judgment.
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
