An employee found guilty in disciplinary proceedings cannot be treated equally with other employees having an unblemished track record, the Bombay high court said on Thursday while upholding the validity of a government resolution (GR) issued by the general administration department (GAD) keeping those punished for misconduct from the purview of consideration for promotion.
“To qualify for a promotion, what is least expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record,” said the bench of justice SV Gangapurwala and justice Shrikant Kulkarni. “An employee found guilty of misconduct cannot be placed at par with other employees and his/her case has to be treated differently,” the court added and dismissed a petition filed by Mohan Sangvikar, a sub-divisional engineer with the public works department.
Sangvikar had approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) challenging the validity of a clause in a GR issued by the GAD on December 15, 2017, based on which he was declared unfit for promotion to the post of execution engineer. In April 2018, the departmental promotion committee has held him eligible as he was found guilty in a disciplinary proceeding. In November 2017, his increment was ordered to be withheld without any cumulative effect on his future increments.
Sangvikar moved the high court after the MAT rejected his plea in March 2019. He challenged the validity of the GR contending that it was arbitrary, illegal and violative of the constitutional mandate of equality. It was also argued on his behalf that he could not have been denied a promotion, as no disciplinary proceeding was pending against him at the relevant time.
The high court, however, rejected the argument. It said when an officer is found guilty in a departmental proceeding, the imposition of punishment is with an object to improve his conduct and to enforce discipline. “Denial of promotion in such circumstance is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct,” said the bench.
The bench noted that the DLC took into consideration that at the relevant time, his punishment was not over. Besides, he had not been debarred for promotion and could be considered after the period of punishment is over in June 2020.
“There is, therefore, no discrimination found in the matter of promotion of the present petitioner,” said the bench. “It cannot be expected from any administration to reward an employee with a promotion during his period of sentence. As such, we do not find any arbitrariness in the decision taken by the departmental promotion committee (DPC).”
The bench also held that the policy contained in the GR was in larger public interest, keeping in mind difficulties faced by various departments dealing with such employees.
