Exclusion of an officer from a promotion list due to pending vigilance cases is lawful under regulatory provisions, and subsequent acquittals do not retroactively influence prior decisions made by promotion committees.

JUDGMENT

[O.P.(KAT) Nos.260 OF 2023, 262 OF 2023]

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The petitioner, who is the applicant in O.A.(EKM) Nos. 1096 of 2020 and 3013 of 2017 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), filed these original petitions, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the common order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the Tribunal in those original applications.

O.P.(KAT)No.260 of 2023

2. Going by the averments in O.A.(EKM)No.1096 of 2020 from which the above Original Petition arose, the petitioner, who was promoted as a Motor Vehicle Inspector on 12.07.2017, is ahead of his promotion as Joint Regional Transport Officer, from 2017 onwards. He is serial number 4 in Annexure A1 provisional seniority list dated 17.07.2018, published by the 2^nd respondent. The incumbents up to serial number 49 have been promoted so far, but not the petitioner. The reason stated initially in the DPC (Higher) held on 17.05.2017 was that an investigation in the vigilance case registered in the year 2014 against the petitioner was going on. On 10.10.2017 and 22.01.2018, the DPC (Higher) recorded and stated yet another reason, that a memo of charge dated 24.06.2017 issued under Rule 15 is also pending against the petitioner. The Rule 15 notice was finalised by ordering censure as per the order dated 19.05.2018. On 09.07.2018, the DPC recorded the reason that a prosecution sanction has been granted in the Vigilance Case on 04.06.2018. The petitioner further states that the vacancy for which he is claiming his right occurred in the year 2017, and at that time, only the investigation was underway. In the pending vigilance case, the applicant has explained his source of income, and the prosecution is being delayed, for the reason beyond the control of the petitioner. Even in the midst of prosecution under vigilance cases, some of the incumbents were given promotion to the post of Joint RTO, and even in the post of RTO, and a different yardstick has been taken against the petitioner alone. As per Annexure A9 and A10 proceedings dated 03.02.2020 and 23.07.2020 of the 1^st respondent, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, and many of his juniors in service are promoted to the post of Joint RTO. The denial of promotion is highly arbitrary and illegal. With these pleadings, the petitioner filed O.A.(EKM)No.1096 of 2020 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following reliefs;

“(a) To call for the records leading to issue Annexures A1 and A9, and A10 orders, and to quash Annexures A9 and A10 orders, to the extent of non-consideration of the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Joint Regional Transport Officer, on the basis of his seniority in Annexure A1.

(b)To declare that the applicant herein is entitled for promotion to the post of Joint Regional Transport Officer, as per his seniority in Annexure A1, irrespective of the fact that investigation which was in progress, at the time of occurrence of vacancy for which, the applicant is entitled for promotion, as per his seniority in Annexure A1.

(c) To direct the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Joint Regional Transport Officer, in terms of his seniority in Annexure A1, and accordingly to grant promotion to the applicant, forthwith, as per law.”

2.1. In the original application, on behalf of the 1^st respondent, a reply statement dated 31.01.2022 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioner. Paragraphs 5 to