The tribunal upheld the discretion of the Departmental Promotion Committee to deny promotion based on past misconduct, aligning with established regulations.

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)

Being aggrieved by order dated 23.11.2022 (Annexure-A/1) whereby the applicant was not granted promotion to the post of Assistant Director (OL) in Level-10, the applicant has preferred this OA seeking direction against the respondents to consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (OL).

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-

2.1 The applicant was initially appointed as LDC in HQ SWAC(U) on 18.08.1988. After passing the requisite selection he was appointed as Junior Translator on 07.04.1988. Thereafter, he got promotion on 09.06.2004 to the post of Senior Translator (H), which has been later re- designated as Senior Translation Officer. The applicant has been working satisfactorily and never faced any unusuality except at one occasion. Vide order dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure-A/2), disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, were initiated against him wherein following penalty with immediate effects was imposed upon him-

“Reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with further direction that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.”

2.2 The post of Assistant Director (Official Language) is a selection post and to be filled in on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability and possessing a bench mark of ‘very good’ during the last five years prior to vacancy year. There was cadre restructuring of Official Language in Air Force vide letter dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure-A/5), whereby 23 posts of Assistant Director (OL) Level 10 were established. The applicant’s name was within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (OL). As per the seniority list of Senior Translation Officers employed in the IAF as on 01.01.2021 (Annexure- A/4), the applicant’s name appears at serial no.17. His APARs were duly forwarded to the DPC. His name appears at serial no.7 in the Performa (Annexure-A/6) issued on 01.01.20121. The applicant having fulfilled the eligibility criteria and obtained the requisite bench mark, aspired that his candidature would be duly considered and he would be granted the next promotion to the post of Assistant Director (OL). He had otherwise nothing adverse against him so as to obstruct his promotion. The penalty of reduction imposed upon him had been over on 17.07.2019 itself.

2.3 The respondents vide promotion/posting order dated 23.11.2022 (Annexure-A/1), promoted 17 persons from the post of Senior Translation Officer to the post of Assistant Director (OL) in level-10. The name of the applicant does not appear in this promotion order. However, the name of junior appears in this order. It is alleged that the impugned order does not contain any reason for not considering his candidature or his supersession in promotion. It is alleged that non-grant of his promotion is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It seems that some extraneous material has been taken into account for depriving him from his due promotion.

2.4 With the above facts and case, the applicant has prayed to direct the respondents to consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (OL) level-10 with all consequential benefits.

3. As per the reply to the OA filed by the respondents, consequent upon restructuring of officials in cadre of Rajbhasha, whereby 23 posts of Assistant Director (OL) were sanctioned vide letter dated 27.11.2019, a proposal for promotion from the post of STO to Assistant Direct