2019 (3) TMI 1974 - Tri - Indian Laws

Tribunal orders reassessment of promotion eligibility for 2015-2017 based on service record and penalty.

The Tribunal partially allowed the case, directing the reassessment of the applicant's promotion eligibility for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017, taking ... Supersession to Indian Administrative Service (IAS) from Orissa administrative Service (OAS) - Legality of selection process for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service for the year 2015 and 2016 - validity of notification regarding promotion of the officers of State Civil Service of Odisha to the IAS for the vacancies of the year 2015 - Violation of IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 read with the IAS (Appointment on Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Whether the minor penalty imposed on the applicant vide order dated 24.9.2011(Annexure-A/6 to the OA) can be considered more than once for denying promotion of the applicant to IAS, particularly since the CCRs of the applicant continue to be ‘Outstanding’ for which State Government recommended his case for years 2013 to 2017? - HELD THAT:- From the guidelines of DOPT OM dated 28.4.2014, it is stipulated that in the case of promotion of an officer on whom a penalty has been imposed in disciplinary proceedings, the DPC in assessing the suitability of an officer, will have to take into account circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and then decide whether in the light of general service record of the officer, he/she should be assessed to be fit or unfit for promotion. Further, denial of promotion to such an officer after the penalty period is over will be violation of the Article 20 of the Constitution of India provided in sub para (i) of para 7 of the guidelines extracted above. Hence, after the period of penalty is over, it was necessary for the selection committee to have assessed the suitability of the applicant with regard to his overall service record to assess his suitability taking into account the imposition of the penalty. However, during currency of the penalty, the officer would be unfit for promotion. Comparing the guidelines of the DOPT, with the internal guidelines of the UPSC dated 14.2.2014 (Annexure-R/3/1) for promotion to IAS, it is noticed that the internal guidelines of UPSC, applied by the respondent no.2 to the case of the applicant (vide the paragraph 5.1 and 6.2 of the Reply filed by the respondent No.2) provide for classifying an officer as unfit if in any of the years in the assessment matrix, the penalty imposed has some implication, even when the date of consideration is after the expiry of the period of penalty. The case of the applicant deserves to be reconsidered in the interest of justice, since as stated in the counter filed by the respondent No.2, the applicant’s case was decided only on the basis of the fact that a penalty was imposed even though the currency of that penalty was over by the time the applicant was considered for promotion, without assessing his overall performance for the years in question as required under the DOPT guidelines - Application allowed in part. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the selection process for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) for the years 2015 and 2016.2. Impact of minor penalty imposed in 2011 on the applicant's promotion to IAS.3. Applicability of various guidelines and regulations in assessing the suitability of the applicant for promotion.4. Reconsideration of the applicant's case for promotion based on overall service record and penalty imposed.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Selection Process for Promotion to IAS for 2015 and 2016:The applicant challenged the selection process for promotion to IAS for the years 2015 and 2016, asserting it was illegal and perverse, violating the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, and the IAS (Appointment on Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The applicant sought to quash the notification and order regarding the promotion of officers for these years. The Tribunal noted that the selection process must adhere to the rules and regulations governing IAS promotions, ensuring fairness and legality.2. Impact of Minor Penalty Imposed in 2011 on the Applicant's Promotion:The applicant argued that a minor penalty imposed in 2011 should not have repeatedly affected his promotion prospects. The penalty involved the stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, which downgraded one year of his Confidential Character Roll (CCR) from 'Outstanding' to 'Very Good.' The Tribunal examined whether this penalty could be considered more than once for denying promotion, especially since the applicant's CCRs were otherwise 'Outstanding.' The Tribunal referred to various guidelines, including DOPT and UPSC internal guidelines, to determine the appropriate treatment of penalties in promotion assessments.3. Applicability of Various Guidelines and Regulations:The Tribunal analyzed the guidelines provided by the UPSC and DOPT regarding the assessment of officers with penalties. The UPSC guidelines dated 14.2.2014 stated that if the penalty's effect lapsed before the assessment year but had implications on any year in the assessment matrix, the officer would be categorized as 'Unfit' for the relevant year. However, the DOPT guidelines emphasized that the overall service record should be considered, and denial of promotion after the penalty period would violate Article 20 of the Constitution. The Tribunal found that the internal guidelines of UPSC, which were not circulated, could not restrict the authority of the selection committee.4. Reconsideration of the Applicant's Case for Promotion:The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's case deserved reconsideration. It directed the respondents to reassess the applicant's suitability for promotion to IAS for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017, considering his overall service record and the penalty imposed. The Tribunal set aside the order rejecting the applicant's representation and instructed the respondents to convene a review meeting of the selection committee to reassess the applicant's promotion eligibility. If found suitable, the applicant would be entitled to consequential benefits as per law.Conclusion:The Tribunal partially allowed the OA, directing the respondents to reassess the applicant's case for promotion to IAS, considering the overall service record and the penalty imposed, within four months. The Tribunal emphasized the need for fairness and adherence to guidelines in the promotion process. There was no order as to costs.