Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Shri Pradip Debbarma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura &Ors.- Respondents
W.P(C) No.276 of 2012
Decided On : 27-01-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. J. Majumder, Advocate
The penalty imposed on an employee should not be a ground for denying promotion, and the consideration of penalty in promotion decisions should be in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
Headnote:
Promotion - Store Keeper - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 Rule 11(iii), Rule 11(v), Rule 11(vi) - The court directed the respondents to reconvene the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Inspector (Food) without considering the penalty imposed, and if found fit, to promote him with pecuniary benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Store Keeper, challenged the orders promoting juniors to the post of Inspector (Food) while he was penalized for assessed loss. The petitioner claimed his promotion from the date when his juniors were appointed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the penalty imposed on the petitioner should not be considered as a ground for denying his promotion, and directed the respondents to reconvene the DPC to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion without considering the penalty imposed.
Issues: The issues involved the denial of promotion to the petitioner based on the penalty imposed and the consideration of the penalty in the promotion decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the penalty imposed on the petitioner should not be a ground for denying his promotion, and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion without considering the penalty imposed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the extent that the respondents were directed to reconvene the DPC to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion without considering the penalty imposed, and if found fit, to promote him with pecuniary benefits.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who has been working as the Store Keeper under the respondents No.1 and 2 from 30.04.1990 has challenged the Order dated 03.01.2007, Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition and the Order dated 06.12.2007, Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition whereby the respondents No.4 to 6 have been promoted to the post of Inspector (Food), even though they are admittedly junior to the petitioner in the grade of Store Keeper.
2. The facts are mostly admitted. A departmental proceeding was initiated by the Memorandum No.F.26(10)DF/98 dated 20.04.1998 against the petitioner. As the petitioner had initially denied the charges, a due inquiry had taken place. The inquiry officer returned his findings on 25.11.2002 to the Disciplinary Authority, the Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the said inquiry report for making his representation against the findings those held him guilty. Thereafter, the Director of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs by the order dated 27.08.2003 passed the final order which is reproduced hereunder:
ORDER
“Examined the representation dated 10.02.2003 of Shri Pradip Debbarma, Store Keeper submitted in response to the proposed penalty communicated vide endorsement No.F.26(10)DF/98 dated 03.01.2003 along with findings of the Inquiring Authority on the charge framed against him very carefully and sympathetically on proper application of mind.
2. I am of the considered opinion that when the records maintained by the A.O. himself reflects the shortage, question of physical verification of stock does not arise. Had there been physical verification occurred the quantity of shortage in the godown during the material period would have been more than that of shortage detected on verification of records maintained by the A.O and as a result liability of the A.O would have been swelled.
3. If the argument of the A.O as to damage of stock on account of defective godown is taken into account there should have been the accumulated damaged stock in the godown.
4. I, therefore, confirm the penalty proposed vide order dated 2.1.2003 and order for recovery of the penal amount of Rs.2,44,238.07 say Rs.2,44,238(Two Lakh Forty Four Thousand Two hundred Thirty Eight) only at the monthly rate of instalment of Rs.1,400/(Rupees One thousand Four hundred) from the salary of Shri Pradip Debbarma, Store Keeper, commencing from the month of September, 2003 payable in Oct, 2003 till completion of recovery. In case the entire loss is not recovered within the service period of Shri Pradip Debbarma, StoreKeeper, the remaining balance amount may be recovered from the pensionary benefit of the incumbent.
5. The fact of imposition of penalty and recovery of the penal amount in full may be recorded in the Service Book of the incumbent under proper authentication.”
3. It is apparent that by the said order, the penalty that was imposed was for recovery of the assessed loss. It has been directed that the said amount should be recovered by instalments at Rs.1,400/per month from the salary of the petitioner from September, 2003 till completion of recovery. It has been also observed that in case the entire loss is not recovered within the service period of the petitioner, the remaining balance amount may be recovered from the pensionery benefit of the petitioner. The said order dated 27.08.2003 reached its finality. By the order dated 21.10.2000, Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition, one Shibsankar Khisha, Jr. Store Keeper, the respondent No.3 herein, was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector (Food). The respondent No.3 was junior to the petitioner in the grade of the Store Keeper. Thereafter, on recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) Sri Debsankar Jamatia and Sri Sri Gunaram Malsom, the respondents No.4 and 5 respectively, who were also juniors to the petitioner in the Grade of the Store Keeper were promoted on regular basis to the post of
