Admission of guilt in disciplinary proceedings resulting in censure penalty, without exoneration, bars challenge to penalty and entitlement to retrospective promotion despite juniors' promotion during pendency.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“1. To issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned penalty Annexure P/25 ANNEXURE P/29 & ANNEXURE P/30.

2. That the respondents may further be commanded by issuing writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date juniors have been promoted as Senior Assistant and further as Superintendent Grade-II, with all consequential benefits.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, which finally culminated into order dated 20.12.2019 (Annexure P/25), passed by the Disciplinary Authority, relevant portion whereof, reads as under:-

“Earlier in compliance with Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal order dated 23.12.2015 a copy of said enquiry report along with fresh Show Cause Notice letter No. HB (4)325/93 dated 16.06.2016 was served upon the delinquent official, which has been acknowledged by the said official and he has submitted his reply on dated 28.06.2016, wherein he has prayed that absence from the duties was not intentional rather he was trapped in such a circumstances to opt between his duties or to look after his ailing mother. Further he has ensured not to repeat such things in future and requested to take lenient view by exonerating him from the charges framed against him and denovo enquiry proceedings may be dropped and period of absence from Govt. duty w.e.f. 06.06.2010 to 31.01.2011 may very kindly be regularized.

Now therefore, after taking into consideration the request of the delinquent official Shri Mahender Kumar Mahajan, Junior Assistant, the under signed is of the opinion that denovo enquiry proceedings against said Shri Mahender Kumar Mahajan, Junior Assistant as ordered vide this office order No. 76472016 dated 26.09.2016 are no more required, as the said official has admitted the charge (s) and request has been made by him to consider his case sympathetically, Sh. Mahender Kumar Mahajan, Junior Assistant is "Censured" and warned not to repeat such things in future. Further it is also ordered that the period of willful absence from the Govt. duty w.e.f. 07.06.2010 to 31.01.2011 is treated to be as leave of kind due as a special case.”

3. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, was assailed by the petitioner by way of an appeal and the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.09.2021 (Annexure P/29), in terms whereof, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was maintained by the Appellate Authority. As the order passed by the Appellate Authority is brief but self-speaking, the same is also quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“Brief facts are that proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 of CCS/CCA 1965 against him for disobedience of orders and absence from Government duty for which he had been given compulsory retirement from service. After a prolonged litigation, the matter was reviewed by the PCCF (HoFF) and penalty of censure was given to Sh. Mahajan as she is the disciplinary authority of Sh. Mahajan.

Sh Maliajan preferred an appeal on 25.06.2021 to drop the penalty of Censure. His contention is that he had proceeded on earned leave on 5.06.2010 and that his juniors were promoted from 2014. He further requested for retrospective promotion with consequential benefits from 15/07/2014 and that the representation on 22/05/2020 may be treated as appeal