1989 Supreme(Raj) 722
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.C.Agrawal, Mohini Kapur, JJ.
Prem Chand Kasliwal - Appellant
Versus
State of Raj. & Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2151 of 1986.
Decided On : 10-07-1989
A penalty imposed without future effect cannot affect an employee's seniority or be taken into account to deny promotion.
Headnote:
PROMOTION - SENIORITY - WITHHOLDING OF INCREMENTS - EFFECT ON PROMOTION - PENALTY OF WITHHOLDING OF INCREMENTS WITHOUT CUMULATIVE EFFECT - WHETHER CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT TO DENY PROMOTION - CCA RULES, 1958, RULE 16.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a confirmed Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.), was denied promotion to the post of Office Assistant due to a penalty of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect imposed on him in disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (CCA Rules). The petitioner challenged the denial of promotion, arguing that the penalty could not be taken into account to deny him promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the penalty of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect was a minor penalty and could not be taken into account to deny promotion to the petitioner. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh and others, where it was held that a penalty imposed without future effect could not affect an employee's seniority.
Issues: Whether the penalty of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner could be taken into account to deny him promotion to the post of Office Assistant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the penalty of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect was a minor penalty and could not be taken into account to deny promotion to the petitioner. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh and others, where it was held that a penalty imposed without future effect could not affect an employee's seniority.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order denying promotion to the petitioner, and directed the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to reconsider the matter of promotion in accordance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4th July, 1986 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal').
2. The petitioner is a confirmed Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) in the office of Collector, Tonk and his name appears at S.No. 6-A in the seniority list of U.D.Cs. In relation to an incident of the year 1976-77 disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'CCA Rules') were initiated against the petitioner and in those proceedings, by order dated 7th July, 1880. penalty of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. The matter of promotion from the cadre of U.D.C. to the cadre of Office Assistant was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') and on the basis of the recommendations of the D.P.C. the order dated 19th September 1984 were passed by the Collector, Tonk whereby the respondent No. 3, namely' Janak Nandan Saxena, was promoted on the post of Office Assistant against the vacancy of the year 1983. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is senior to respondent No. 3. He, therefore, filed an appeal against the order dated 19th Sept. 1984 before the Tribunal. In the said appeal the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted in preference to respondent No. 3 on the post of Office Assistant against the vacancy of 1983 and the penalty of withholding of two increments which was imposed by the order dated 7th July, 1980 could not be taken into account so as to deny promotion to the petitioner against the vacancy of 1983. The Tribunal, by its order dated 4th July 1986 has dismissed the said appeal of the petitioner. The Tribunal was of the view that the penalty that was imposed on the petitioner under the order dated 7th July, 1980, related to an incident of 1976-77 and the vacancy for which the promotion of respondent No 3 had been made by the impugned order is of the year 1983 and it was within zone of consideration by the seven years' yardstick. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Notice was issued to the respondents requiring them to show cause as to why the writ petition may not be admitted and finally disposed of. In response to the said notice replies have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 3.
4. We have heard Shri M.R. Calla, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition and the learned Addl. Government Advocate on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 1.
5. Shri Calla has urged that the penalty of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect which was imposed on the petitioner under order dated 7th July, 1980 was in the nature of a minor penalty only and the said penalty could not be taken into account to deny promotion to the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant against the vacancy of 1983. In this connection Shri Calla has urged that under the CCA Rules provision is made for imposition of various penalties and that with-holding of promotion is also one of the penalties which have been prescribed under the said Rules. Shri Calla has contended that the said penalty of with-holding of promotion was not imposed on the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against him and that effect of denial of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant under order dated 19th Sept. 1984 is to impose the penalty of with-holding of promotion of the petitioner which is impermissible. In support of his aforesaid submission Shri Calla has placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh and others (1988)3 S.L.R. 524.
6. In Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board Chandigarh
Click Here to Read the rest of this document