Promotion eligibility cannot be denied based solely on pending disciplinary proceedings unless specific conditions are met as per the relevant Office Memoranda.

JUDGMENT

EASWARAN S., J.

Respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal are the petitioners herein. The short point which requires for consideration of ours is as to whether the petitioners are justified in excluding the respondent/applicant for promotion to the post of Senior Geologist.

2. Facts required for the disposal of the Original Petition are as follows:

The applicant entered service as Geologist with effect from 01.11.2010. Later the applicant filed a representation on 21.12.2015 for non inclusion of her name in the final Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) list. According to the applicant as per the gradation list dated 12.05.2015, many of the juniors of the applicant were promoted.

By communication dated 25.01.2016, the applicant was put on notice that she was considered and recommended for DPC held on 03.11.2015 for promotion to the post of Senior Geologist as per the Minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee.

However, it was pointed out that the said promotion has been withheld because vigilance clearance has not been obtained in the case of the applicant. By representation dated 19.04.2016, the respondent/applicant sought details regarding the vigilance cases which were pending against her. It was informed that there were certain allegations against the respondent/ applicant and which resulted in a minor penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect by order dated 26.04.2016. According to the applicant, the imposition of minor penalty will not have baring on the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee which found the eligibility of an applicant for promotion.

3. The petitioners entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed the reply statement pointing among others that the Vigilance Clearance was not granted because disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the applicant. According to the petitioners, before the actual promotion took place, the disciplinary proceedings had commenced and therefore the authorities rightly withheld the issuance of the Vigilance Clearance Certificate disentitling the respondent/applicant to claim promotion as Senior Geologist. Specific reliance was placed on Annexure-R3 Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2007.

4. On consideration of the materials on record and the pleadings, the Central Administrative Tribunal came into conclusion that the applicant was entitled to succeed and hence issued direction to the petitioners to promote the applicant as Senior Geologist.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the Union of India and others have approached this Court in the above Original Petition.

6. We have heard Sri.K.S.Prenjith Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel as well as Mr.Sajithkumar V ., learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant and have perused the materials on record.

7. Sri.K.S.Prenjith Kumar reiterated the submissions which were raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal with specific reference to Annexure-R3 Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2007. According to the counsel for the petitioners, though the Departmental Promotion Committee found the respondent to be eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Geologist, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 06.12.2015 i.e., before the date on which the respondent was issued with a promotion order. The reasons for rejection of the issuance of the Vigilance Clearance Certificate were specifically mentioned in letter dated 17.12.2015 produced as Ext.R2. He would further point out that going by Clause 2(C) of the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2007, the Vigilance Clearance Certificate can be withheld on the ground that before issuing orders of promotion, the disciplinary proceedings are initiated. The relevant clause of the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2007 reads as follows:

“(c) Vigilance clearance shall not be withheld unless (i) the officer is under suspension (ii) a chargesheet has been issued against the officer in a disc