The mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be grounds for denying provisional promotion to a qualified member of the feeder category.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The petitioner-applicant filed O.P.(KAT) No.43 of 2025, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the orders dated 01.04.2024 passed in O.A.(EKM) No.1918 of 2018 and M.A.(EKM) No.153 of 2019, and the order dated 13.09.2024 in R.A.(EKM) No.27 of 2024; and O.P.(KAT) No.44 of 2025 challenging the order dated 01.04.2024 passed in C.P.(EKM) No.4 of 2019 and the order dated 13.09.2024 in R.A.(EKM) No.28 of 2024, by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal Additional Bench at Ernakulam (‘the Tribunal for short’). The parties and the documents referred in this judgment are in their status as in OP(KAT)No.43 of 2025, unless otherwise stated.

2. The petitioner filed O.A.(EKM)No.1918 of 2018 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To call for the records leading to Annexures A8 and A19 orders from the respondents 1 and 2, and set aside Annexure A8, and A19 orders declining to give temporary promotion to the Applicant to the post of Consultant (Orthopedics) as per Rule 31 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R. over and above the respondents 3 to 5.

ii. To direct the respondents to give temporary promotion to the Applicant to the post of Consultant (Orthopedics) as per Rule 31 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R. in appropriate places in Annexure A8 order over and above the Respondents 3 to 5 in the light of Annexure A20 judgment within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court, notwithstanding the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.

iii. To declare that the Applicant is entitled to get temporary promotion to the post of Consultant (Orthopedics) as per Rule 31 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R. in appropriate places in Annexure A8 order over and above the respondents 3 to 5 in the light of Annexure A20 judgment notwithstanding the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.”

3. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner, while working as a Junior Consultant, Orthopaedics at Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Chavakkad, got admission for P.G. Course. As per Annexure A1 selection memo dated 31.05.2012 issued by the 1^st respondent, he went on leave and completed the Course as per Annexure A2 Course Certificate dated 30.06.2015. Though the PG Course was scheduled to be completed on 01.07.2015, it was rescheduled and completed only on 20.08.2015. The petitioner could not rejoin duty. Though he submitted Annexures A3 and A4 applications dated 29.08.2015 and 03.09.2015, the 1^st respondent, on a misconception of facts and law, issued Annexure A5 letter dated 26.12.2015 directing the 2^nd respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the proceedings in O.A.No.2 of 2016 and O.A.No.600 of 2016 filed before the Tribunal. The 1^st respondent, as per Annexure A8 order dated 02.03.2016, temporarily promoted respondents 3 to 5 to the post of Consultant, overlooking the seniority of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent. Despite several orders of the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 did not give temporary promotion to the petitioner and instead issued Annexure A16 memo of charges dated 22.03.2017, after re-calling Annexure A11 memo of charges dated 25.07.2016. The 2^nd respondent declined the promotion of the petitioner as per Annexure A14 order dated 08.11.2016. The petitioner preferred Annexure A15 Appeal against the same, which was declined by Annexure A19 order dated 07.06.2017 by the 1^st respondent on the ground that disciplinary proceedings