A minor penalty does not automatically bar promotion; the claim must be considered on its merits.

The applicant, a Junior Telecom Officer, qualified the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE), but was not included in the promotion list issued on 2 July 2013 because disciplinary proceedings were pending.

A minor penalty imposed on 27 August 2013 remained in force until 26 August 2014.

The applicant sought consideration for promotion after expiry of the penalty; his request was rejected on 2 January 2015.

He appealed and sent reminders, and, after the appeal was rejected on 7 May 2018, filed this OA with an application to condone delay.

He sought promotion from the date the penalty expired, relying on paragraph 10 of the DG P&T letter dated 25 June 1965 and a decision concerning a similarly situated LDCE candidate.

1. Whether the OA should be rejected as delayed, having regard to the time elapsed after the rejection of the applicant’s claim.

2. Whether the respondents properly considered the applicant’s claim for promotion on its merits under paragraph 10 of the DG P&T letter dated 25 June 1965, applicable when the penalty expired.

Paragraph 10 of the DG P&T letter dated 25 June 1965 provides that, where a penalty other than removal, dismissal or retirement has been imposed, the appointing authority should consider the case on its merits to determine whether promotion is warranted; if promotion is granted, it is to take effect only after expiry of the penalty, with seniority in the higher grade determined by the marks obtained in the competitive examination.

The Tribunal also relied on its decision in A. Kothandapani v. CMD, BSNL & Ors., OA No. 279/2015, which held that a competent authority must apply its mind to the merits under the 1965 guidelines and give a reasoned decision, rather than reject a claim solely because a minor penalty had been imposed.

The respondents referred to the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 28 April 2014, which they said governed sealed-cover treatment in specified circumstances, but the Tribunal’s decision turned on the 1965 guidelines that remained in force when the applicant’s penalty expired.

The applicant’s penalty expired on 26 August 2014, when, as the respondents acknowledged, the 1965 DG P&T letter was still being followed.

Under that letter, the penalty did not automatically disqualify the applicant from promotion; it required the competent authority to assess his case on its merits.

The Tribunal found that the rejection dated 2 January 2015 did not demonstrate such consideration and had rejected the claim routinely.

It therefore treated the applicant as similarly situated to the candidate in Kothandapani, whose claim required fresh, reasoned consideration.

On limitation, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s representations and appeal, including the rejection of his appeal in 2018, and found no deliberate delay warranting dismissal at that stage, particularly given the merits of the claim.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s promotion claim on its merits, in accordance with law, and to issue a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The OA was disposed of with no order as to costs.