Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an employee, against whom the sealed cover procedure had been adopted in the departmental promotion process and whose penalty was ultimately reduced to censure, was entitled to promotion retrospectively from the date on which his juniors were promoted or only from consideration in the next normal DPC.
Analysis: The sealed cover procedure had been adopted because disciplinary proceedings were pending. The governing procedure provided that if a penalty is imposed after conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the findings in the sealed cover are not to be acted upon and the case for promotion is to be considered by the next DPC in the normal course, having regard to the penalty imposed. The reduction of punishment to censure did not alter the position, since censure was treated as a punishment for this purpose. The earlier recommendation in the sealed cover could not therefore be acted upon for grant of retrospective promotion.
Conclusion: The claim for promotion from the date on which juniors were promoted was not sustainable; promotion could only be considered in the normal course after the disciplinary penalty.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's direction granting retrospective promotion was set aside and the writ petition succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where disciplinary proceedings culminate in imposition of a penalty, the sealed cover assessment cannot be acted upon and promotion must be considered only in the next DPC in the normal course, even if the penalty is censure.