The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for objective consideration of an employee's right to promotion, especially in cases involving the nature of punishments and the application of promotion rules.

Headnote:
Promotion - Major Punishment - Promotion Rules - The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner, addressing specific questions related to the nature of punishments, departmental enquiry, and consideration of punishments/rewards for promotion.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought promotion and other benefits, claiming that despite receiving minor punishments, he was denied promotion on the pretext of major punishments. The petitioner had been promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) belatedly, and his juniors were promoted earlier.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had received minor punishments and one major punishment, and that the respondents had not considered the case in the light of previous judgments. The court held that the impugned order was not sustainable and set it aside, directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in detail.
Issues: The issues included the nature of punishments received by the petitioner, the consideration of punishments for promotion, and the failure of the respondents to address the petitioner's right to promotion in an objective manner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the punishments received by the petitioner should be categorized as minor or major, and that a regular departmental enquiry should have been conducted if the punishments were considered major. The court also highlighted the need for objective consideration of the petitioner's right to promotion.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner, addressing specific questions related to the nature of punishments, departmental enquiry, and consideration of punishments/rewards for promotion.

ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

“((i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;

(ii) That, the order Annexure P/1 dated 25.5.2019 passed by the respondent may kindly be directed to be quashed and the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of promotion to the petitioner at par with junior of the petitioner mentioned in Annexure P/4 and may kindly be extended benefit of salary and seniority and other benefits to the petitioner.

(iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to refix the pension of the petitioner and pass fresh PPO after granting promotion to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

(iv) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 22-12-1972 and promoted on the post of Head Constable on 03-04-1984 and he continued to work on the said post till 24-08-2013, when he was promoted on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI Police) and ultimately got superannuated in 2014. Petitioner received 225 rewards between the period 1975 to 2004 and according to petitioner, no major punishment was inflicted to the petitioner but still he was not considered for promotion on the pretext that major punishments have been inflicted over him. Earlier petition was preferred by the petitioner vide writ petition No.7859/2012 which was decided on 27-08-2018 in which direction was given to consider the case of petitioner in the light of plea raised by the petitioner regarding non receipt of communication in respect of major punishments. In pursuance thereof, respondents considered the case and passed the impugned order dated 25-05-2019 and therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the impugned order itself petitioner received three punishments; one on 23-02-1979, of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, other punishment order was dated 23- 03-1994 whereby petitioner was again inflicted punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect and the another punishment order was 30-05-1994 in which reversion/demotion of petitioner from the post of Head Constable to the Constable has been made. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner earlier two increments were minor in nature and for the third punishment whereby he was reverted, he was not given any opportunity of hearing, therefore, it cannot be presumed that it was a just and legal order.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that his juniors have been promoted from 1996 and so on but petitioner is denied the promotion whereas petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Constable in 1984 and he was promoted to the post of A.S.I. On 24-08-2013 and he worked till 30-06-2014 as A.S.I. Time scale of pay could have been given to the petitioner if promotion was not granted. However respondents did not give the promotion to the petitioner from the time his juniors were promoted. According to him, stoppage of increment without cumulative effect is not major punishment and if the said punishment is treated as major punishment then for that no enquiry was conducted by the respondents. Therefore, as per the mandate of Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504 approach of respondents is arbitrary and illegal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer. While relying upon the reply, it is submitted that as per rule 10(5) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classifi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document