Service Law – Benefit of promotion – Monetary benefits – A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the appellant – The appellant participated in the exercise for promotion from MMG/S-II to MMG/S-III and that his promotion was kept in abeyance – After a detailed enquiry, a minor penalty of reduction in pay for 3 years was imposed on appellant – Promotion that was kept in abeyance stood cancelled – Writ Petition – Pending writ petition, in the year 2012, the appellant was promoted from Scale-II to Scale-III – The Single judge of the High Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings and ordered that appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits – In writ appeal, since appellant retired, only question of law was left open – Appellant submitted a representation claiming, restoration of pay since the penalty was set aside and promotion from Scale-II to Scale-III from July, 2001 and monetary benefits – Contempt petition filed against respondents-contemnors – The contemnors replied that they have released the amount of Rs.19,446/- being the reduction in pay for 3 years: Held: Admittedly, the only compliance made by the respondents was to pay the amount of Rs.19,446/- being the reduction in pay for three years – The Single Judge of the High Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings on a ground for which the appellant was not at fault – A junior officer, who was competing for promotion with the appellant, was made the enquiry officer and a clear case of likelihood of bias was made out by the appellant and it was accepted by the Single Judge – The employer Bank did not even contest this position before the Division Bench and merely wanted the question of law to be left open – The appellant was not at fault for the defect in the enquiry – No fresh enquiry was initiated nor was any liberty sought from the Division Bench – In this scenario, appellant cannot be denied the benefit of promotion from 28.07.2001 when he was ordered to be promoted – On the facts of this case, relief will be encompassed in the phrase “consequential benefits” which the Single Judge clearly granted. [Paras 24, 25, 26]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.