A pending departmental proceeding precludes retrospective promotion despite quashing of an earlier penalty.

The petitioner, an Inspector of Police, was not considered for promotion to TPS Grade-II when juniors were promoted in 2021 and 2023, initially because a departmental penalty was in force.

The penalty was later quashed in separate proceedings, with the petitioner held entitled to benefits as if no penalty had been imposed; the State’s appeal was dismissed, and the respondents released financial benefits but did not promote him.

Meanwhile, a further departmental proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner by memorandum dated 24 January 2024, and remained pending.

He sought to quash the promotion orders insofar as they promoted his juniors and to obtain retrospective promotion from the dates of their promotions.

1. Whether, after the earlier penalty was quashed, the petitioner was entitled to retrospective promotion from the dates on which his juniors were promoted.

2. Whether the Court could direct a review DPC and promotion while a subsequent departmental proceeding against the petitioner remained pending.

Under Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, disciplinary proceedings are treated as pending for sealed-cover purposes once a charge memorandum is issued; where an employee is fully exonerated, consequential benefits may be due, though entitlement to arrears depends on the circumstances.

The Court also relied on State of Tamil Nadu v. K.S. Murugesan, which states that promotion is not automatic and that an employee has a right to consideration, not promotion; a subsisting penalty may affect promotion consideration.

It referred to Swapan Das v. State of Tripura as authority for consequential consideration through a review DPC, including retrospective promotion where appropriate after a penalty is set aside.

The Court further noted the limited scope of review under Article 226 in disciplinary matters.

The Court accepted that quashing the earlier penalty removed the bar arising from that penalty and that the petitioner had not received promotion while juniors were promoted.

However, it treated the subsequent departmental proceeding, initiated by a memorandum and accompanied by framed charges, as a reason not to direct a review DPC or retrospective promotion while that proceeding remained unresolved.

Although the petitioner alleged that the proceeding was being used to deny promotion, the Court declined to grant the requested relief at that stage and instead required the department to conclude the proceeding within a fixed period.

It directed the respondents to complete that proceeding within six months from delivery of the judgment, failing which it would be treated as abated.

After its outcome, the petitioner may submit a representation raising his promotion-related grievances.