A minor disciplinary penalty bars retrospective promotion and seniority from the date juniors were promoted.

The petitioner, a Police Constable, was charged in disciplinary proceedings in March 2016 for allegedly assaulting a person at a police station.

On 12 September 2017, he was penalised by postponement of one annual increment for one year, without affecting future increments; his appeal was dismissed.

While the proceedings were pending, his promotion claim was kept in a sealed cover and his junior, respondent No. 5, was promoted as Civil Head Constable.

The petitioner was promoted later, in 2021, and sought seniority in that cadre from the date his junior was promoted.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application on 14 October 2022, holding that he was not entitled to retrospective promotion or seniority; he challenged that decision before the High Court.

1. Whether the petitioner, whose disciplinary proceedings concluded in a minor penalty, was entitled to retrospective promotion and re-fixation of seniority from the date his junior was promoted.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s refusal to grant that relief warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court referred to the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965/1989, under which the petitioner had been charged.

Relying on Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. I.A. Qureshi, (1998) 9 SCC 261, it held that where disciplinary proceedings conclude in a penalty rather than exoneration, the employee is not entitled to retrospective consideration for promotion or consequential re-fixation of seniority from the date a junior was promoted.

The Court also applied the principle that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion, not an automatic right to promotion.

The petitioner’s promotion had been withheld while disciplinary proceedings were pending, and those proceedings ended in a penalty; he was therefore not exonerated.

The Court held that the penalty precluded retrospective promotion and seniority from the date respondent No. 5 was promoted.

Since the petitioner was promoted only in a subsequent selection, those promoted under the earlier selection list remained senior to him in the promotional cadre.

The Court found no error in the Tribunal’s decision warranting writ interference.

The Tribunal’s order was left undisturbed.