A charge memo served after promotion and joining cannot invalidate that promotion.

S. Munikrishnan was holding the post of HSG-I (Postal) on an ad hoc basis. His name was included at Serial No. 11 in the approved panel for regular promotion, approved on 16 May 2013. Pursuant to the panel, a promotion order was issued on 19 May 2013, and he joined the post on 20 May 2013 in the forenoon.

Although a charge memo had been issued on 14 May 2013, it was not placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee. The charge memo was despatched only on 20 May 2013 and was acknowledged by Munikrishnan on 21 May 2013, after he had joined the promotional post.

The Department subsequently cancelled his promotion on the ground that the promotion had been granted despite the pending charge memo and in accordance with the conditions contained in the promotion order.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, set aside the cancellation by order dated 23 January 2024 in O.A. No. 310/00869/2013. The Union of India challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether a charge memo issued before the date of promotion but served on the employee only after he had joined the promotional post could be relied upon to cancel the promotion

Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order setting aside the cancellation of promotion warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Court applied the principle that, for purposes of withholding or cancelling a promotion on the basis of disciplinary proceedings, the charge memo must have been served on the employee before the promotion takes effect.

A charge memo merely issued internally, but not served before the employee’s promotion and joining, could not be held against the employee in the circumstances of the case.

The Court also exercised its limited judicial-review jurisdiction under Article 226, declining to interfere with the Tribunal’s order where the Tribunal’s conclusion was consistent with the established facts.

The Court distinguished between the internal issuance of the charge memo on 14 May 2013 and its actual service on Munikrishnan on 21 May 2013. The promotion order had been issued on 19 May 2013, and Munikrishnan had joined the promotional post on 20 May 2013 before receiving the charge memo.

Consequently, although the authorities argued that the charge memo should have been placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee and that the promotion was granted due to an administrative mistake, the Court held that the memo could not operate against the employee after his promotion had taken effect.

The fact that the authorities failed to place the charge memo before the Committee did not justify cancellation of the promotion once the memo had been served only after joining.

Since the Tribunal’s order accorded with this factual and legal position, the High Court found no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order dated 23 January 2024 was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.