Notional promotion is not granted with retrospective effect unless there are exceptional circumstances or a rule permitting it.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th  respondent in O.A.No.1008/2014 dated 12.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to grant Notional Promotion as Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise w.e.f. 2006 on par with his juniors with all service and monetary benefits.)

D. Krishnakumar, J.

1. The writ petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.1008 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and aggrieved by the dismissal of the aforesaid original application filed by him seeking direction to the respondent to give notional promotion as Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise w.e.f. 2006 on par with his juniors with all other service and monetary benefits, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The facts of the case, briefly narrated, are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner joined the Customs Department as a Ministerial Staff (Lower Division Clerk) during March, 1970. He was selected as a Preventive Officer by way of direct recruitment w.e.f. 18.11.1974. On completion of 20 years, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) w.e.f. 01.07.1994.

2.2. While so, during the year 2001, CBI registered a case against the petitioner along with others under C.C.No.21/2001 and after full fledged trial, he was acquitted in the said criminal case on 30.04.2008. Meanwhile, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the very same allegations and a charge memo was issued against the petitioner on 25.03.2004, on his failure to supervise the goods from the bonded warehouse during the year 2003. The Enquiry Officer held that charges framed against the petitioner has not been established and in the meantime, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2008.

2.3. According to the petitioner, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, vide proceedings dated 07.03.2011, has passed an order stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner is not established and that the additional charge emerging in the departmental enquiry is not grave enough to warrant action under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and thereby, the Hon'ble President closed the departmental proceedings instituted under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.

2.4. According to the petitioner, after dropping the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents ought to have opened the sealed cover procedure in order to grant promotion of Assistant Commissioner and the consequential promotion of Deputy Commissioner of Customs on par with his juniors. Since no orders were passed, the petitioner earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No.781/2013 seeking notional promotion as Assistant Commissioner of Customs w.e.f. 2002 and consequential promotion as Deputy Commissioner of Customs w.e.f. 2006 and vide orders passed by the Tribunal and subsequent filing of contempt petition, the respondent had partly complied with the orders of the Tribunal by giving notional promotion as Assistant Commissioner of Customs w.e.f. 10.12.2002 vide proceedings dated 17.12.2003.

2.5. Since the order of the Tribunal was partly complied with, the petitioner sent a representation dated 09.01.2014 seeking promotion as Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise w.e.f. 01.02.2006 on par with his juniors with all service and monetary benefits and since no order has been passed, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1008 of 2014 and the Tribunal dismissed the said original application, vide order dated 12.07.2019, against which the instant writ petition is filed.

3. Mr.K.N.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Disciplinary Authority took almost 11 years to complete the disciplinary proceedings for