Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.NAVEEN RAO, J.
B. Bhaskar, S/o Beesanna – Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana, represented by the Prl.s Secretary (Home) and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.1805 of 2020
Decided On : 20-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri G.U.R.C. Prasad
Point of Law
Fundamental Rule 24, an employee is entitled to annual increment as a matter course. Rule also mandates withholding of increment if such employee has committed misconduct. Thus, if punishment of withholding of increment is imposed denial of increment does not offend Fundamental Rule 24.
Headnote:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Constitution of India 1950 - Petitioner is working as Police Constable and aspiring for promotion as Head Constable. This writ petition is filed alleging that he is not promoted to the next higher post, even though several of his batch-mates and juniors were promoted in the year 2018 and the same is arbitrary and unconstitutional and seeks promotion on par with his juniors - From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is apparent that several disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him resulting in ordering seven punishments. - Held, Tribunal has erred in holding that when an officer is found guilty in the discharge of his duties, and imposition of penalty is all that is necessary to improve his conduct and to enforce discipline and ensure purity in the administration. In the first instance, the penalty short of dismissal will vary from reduction in rank to censure. We are sure that the Tribunal has not intended that the promotion should be given to the officer from the original date even when the penalty imparted is of reduction in rank. On principle, for the same reasons, the officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if the penalty is other than that of the reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion. He has only a right to be considered for promotion. petitioner alleges that his juniors were promoted in the year 2018. By the time his juniors and batch-mates were promoted, petitioner was under currency of punishment on account of orders passed on 6.1.2016 which being with cumulative effect, operates for two years in accordance with Government policy decision notified vide G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 25.04.1985 read with G.O.Ms.No.968 dated 26.10.1995. In addition, he is having six other punishment orders, which are cumulatively in force till 2023. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to promotion till he undergoes all punishments. Denial of promotion in the circumstances does not amount to double jeopardy - writ petition dismissed.
Facts of the case:
Petitioner is working as Police Constable and aspiring for promotion as Head Constable. This writ petition is filed alleging that he is not promoted to the next higher post, even though several of his batch-mates and juniors were promoted in the year 2018 and the same is arbitrary and unconstitutional and seeks promotion on par with his juniors - From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is apparent that several disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him resulting in ordering seven punishments. Each of the punishments imposed deals with different delinquency alleged against the employee. All the seven disciplinary proceedings deal with unauthorized absence for 21 days and more.
Finding of the court:
Tribunal has erred in holding that when an officer is found guilty in the discharge of his duties, and imposition of penalty is all that is necessary to improve his conduct and to enforce discipline and ensure purity in the administration. In the first instance, the penalty short of dismissal will vary from reduction in rank to censure. We are sure that the Tribunal has not intended that the promotion should be given to the officer from the original date even when the penalty imparted is of reduction in rank. On principle, for the same reasons, the officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if the penalty is other than that of the reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion. He has only a right to be considered for promotion. petitioner alleges that his juniors were promoted in the year 2018. By the time his juniors and batch-mates were promoted, petitioner was under currency of punishment on account of orders passed on 6.1.2016 which being with cumulative effect, operates for two years in accordance with Government policy decision notified vide G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 25.04.1985 read with G.O.Ms.No.968 dated 26.10.1995. In addition, he is having six other punishment orders, which are cumulatively in force till 2023. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to promotion till he undergoes all punishments. Denial of promotion in the circumstances does not amount to double jeopardy - writ petition, accordingly, same is dismissed.
Result: writ petition, accordingly, same is dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II.
2. Petitioner is working as Police Constable and aspiring for promotion as Head Constable. This writ petition is filed alleging that he is not promoted to the next higher post, even though several of his batch-mates and juniors were promoted in the year 2018 and the same is arbitrary and unconstitutional and seeks promotion on par with his juniors.
3. From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is apparent that several disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him resulting in ordering seven punishments. Each of the punishments imposed deals with different delinquency alleged against the employee. All the seven disciplinary proceedings deal with unauthorized absence for 21 days and more.
4. First order was passed on 6.1.2016 imposing punishment of ‘postponement of annual increment by two years with cumulative effect on his future pension and increments’; second order was passed on 18.1.2016 imposing punishment of ‘postponement of annual increments by two years “when next falls due” without cumulative effect’; third order was passed on 17/19-2-2016 imposing punishment of ‘postponement of annual increments for two years without having effect on future increments’; fourth order was passed on 13/16-5-2016 imposing punishment of ‘Postponement of increments for three years without effect’; fifth order was passed on 20.5.2016 imposing punishment of ‘postponement of annual grade increments for two years without cumulative effect on his future increments and pension’; sixth order D.O.No.1255/2017 was passed on 3.8.2017 imposing punishment of ‘Postponement of increment for one year without effect on future increments’ and on the same day i.e., 3.8.2017 seventh order D.O.No.1256/2017 was passed imposing punishment of ‘PPI for one year without effect on future increments. In all disciplinary proceedings, the period of absence was treated as leave without pay’.
5. On appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6.1.2016, punishment was reduced to one increment with cumulative effect instead of two increments with cumulative effect. On appeal preferred by petitioner against the order dated 18.1.2016, punishment was reduced to one increment without cumulative effect. On appeal against order dated 17/19-2-2016 punishment was reduced to one increment without cumulative effect instead of stoppage of two increments; in the appeal against order dated 13/16-5-2016 punishment was reduced to two increments without cumulative effect instead of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect; against order dated 20.5.2016, punishment was reduced to one increment without cumulative effect against stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect; and appeal against order D.O.No.1256/2017 dated 3.8.2017 was dismissed.
6. The revisions preferred by the petitioner were dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as punishments were imposed in the year 2016-17, the currency of punishment was already over and he is entitled to be considered for promotion. He would further submit that denying promotion when due on the ground that punishments were imposed would be amounting to double jeopardy, and no employee can be penalized twice, i.e., punishment of withholding of increment and denial of promotion. He would further submit that in accordance with Fundamental Rule 24 whenever an employee completes 12 months of service satisfactorily, as a matter of course he is entitled to release of increment due on the date of increment and denial of increment would be amounting to violating the Fundamental Rule 24.
8. An employee is placed in scale of pay attached to the post which would have various stages. The pay of the employee increases from year to year by adding annual increment fixed for the pay scale of that post. On satisfactory completion of 12 months of service in that post one increment
