Promotion benefits under MACP cannot be denied unless formal proceedings are initiated against the employee.

Headnote:(A) Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109] - Promotion - Grant of 2nd MACP - The petitioner’s claim for 2nd MACP was rejected due to alleged pendency of proceedings; however, no charge-memo or charge-sheet was pending at the time of consideration. The court clarified that for denial of promotion, proceedings must be at the stage of charge-memo/charge-sheet. (Paras 10-14)

(B) Administrative Law - The grant of MACP benefit is not a matter of right and is contingent upon meeting the necessary benchmarks as determined by the Screening Committee. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as Assistant Engineer in 1987, was denied the 2nd MACP despite being eligible as no departmental or criminal proceedings were pending at the time of the Screening Committee's meeting on 08.11.2012.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order was unsustainable as there were no pending proceedings against the petitioner when the claim was considered; the matter was remitted for reconsideration.

Issues: The key issue was whether the denial of the 2nd MACP was justified given the absence of pending charges at the time of consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that promotion cannot be denied without a pending charge-memo or charge-sheet, reaffirming the principle that proceedings must be formally initiated for such denial.

Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 11-11-2024 Heard Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahtab Alam, learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner by filing the present writ petition prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 7173(S) dated 17.09.2018 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of 2nd MACP has been rejected.

3. The short facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer on 25.06.1987. On being found eligible, the petitioner was extended the benefit of 1st ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999. While the Screening Committee convened meeting on 08.11.2012 to consider the claim of the Assistant Engineers (Civil), Road Construction Department for grant of 2nd MACP; nonetheless, the name of the petitioner finds place at SI. No. 218, it has not been found favour on account of the alleged pendency of departmental proceeding as well as criminal proceeding.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned contended that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner was totally misplaced, as the date on which the petitioner became entitled to get the benefit of 2nd MACP on 09.08.2009 and the date on which the Screening Committee considered the claim of the petitioner along with others for grant of benefits under the 2nd MACP on 08.11.2012, there had neither been any departmental proceeding nor a criminal case pending against him. Drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order, it is further contended that the promotion of a government servant may be denied only on account of the pendency of disciplinary/criminal proceeding or in case the employee(s) is under suspension. The disciplinary proceeding is said to be pending only with effect from the date on which the memo of charge has been issued. So far the criminal proceeding is concerned, it is said to be pending with effect from the date when the charge-sheet is submitted, is the contention of learned counsel.

5. Referring to the afore-noted contention, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly the date on which the claim of the petitioner was under consideration before the Screening Committee, there was neither memo of charge issued to the petitioner nor the charge-sheet was filed in a criminal case. Thus, in no circumstances, it can be said that the departmental proceeding/judicial proceeding was pending against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State countering the afore-noted submissions of the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 clearly reveals that apart from the pendency of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 54 of 2010, there was recommendation made by the Patna Municipal Corporation for initiation of departmental proceeding. It is further contended that in the afore-noted criminal case, vide order dated 60 dated 05.07.2013, sanction for prosecution has also been accorded and the petitioner is still facing criminal case along with the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order by making the submissions as afore-mentioned.

7. This Court has heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

8. The grant of MACP benefit is not a matter of right and it is after the Screening Committee finds that the officer meets the benchmark that an upgradation can be granted.

9. From the materials available on record, it appear that the date on which the Screening Committee convened meeting and the claim of the petitioner was under consideration along with other Assistant Engineers (Civil), there was neither any memo of charge issued against the petitioner nor any charge-sheet was submitted in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 54 of

2010.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. K.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3893

PATNA HIGH COURTMR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR, JShailesh Mishra – AppellantVersusThe State Of Bihar and Ors – RespondentCWJC 2265 / 2019

Promotion benefits under MACP cannot be denied unless formal proceedings are initiated against the employee.

Cases Referred (1)

PATNA HIGH COURT
MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR, J
Shailesh Mishra – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Ors – Respondent
CWJC 2265 / 2019