Deferred financial upgradation under ACP/MACP schemes due to disciplinary proceedings has a consequential effect on subsequent upgradations.

The applicant joined as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in CPWD on February 2, 1990

He became eligible for the 1st ACP benefit upon completing 12 years of service on February 2, 2002; however, he was facing disciplinary proceedings initiated on March 6, 2000

These proceedings concluded on June 26, 2006, with a major penalty of pay reduction for one year

Consequently, the respondents granted the 1st ACP w.e.f. June 27, 2007 (after the penalty currency) and the 2nd MACP w.e.f. June 27, 2015

The applicant sought retrospective grant of the 1st ACP from 2002 and 2nd MACP from 2010, arguing that the departmental delay in concluding the inquiry (6 years instead of the CVC-recommended 6 months) should not prejudice his financial benefits

1. Whether the pendency and subsequent imposition of a major penalty justify the deferment of financial upgradations under the ACP and MACP Schemes

2. Whether the violation of CVC guidelines regarding the timeline for disciplinary proceedings entitles an employee to claim benefits retrospectively despite an active penalty

Clause 6 of Annexure-I of the ACP Scheme (OM dated 09.08.1999), which stipulates that financial upgradation is subject to the fulfillment of normal promotion norms, including benchmarks and disciplinary clearance

Clauses 15 and 18 of the MACP Scheme, which state that if a financial upgradation is deferred due to departmental proceedings or unfitness, it has a "consequential effect" on subsequent upgradations, delaying them by the same extent

Clarification No. 7 of the OM dated 09.09.2010, confirming that any postponement of the first upgradation due to disciplinary matters naturally shifts the timeline for the second and third upgradations

The Tribunal reasoned that because the applicant was undergoing disciplinary proceedings when his 1st ACP fell due in 2002, the respondents were legally bound to withhold the benefit

Upon the imposition of a major penalty in 2006, the benefit could only be granted after the one-year currency of the penalty ended in June 2007, resulting in a total deferment of 5 years and 4 months

Applying the "consequential effect" rule under Clauses 15 and 18 of the MACP Scheme, the Tribunal found that the 2nd MACP (due normally in 2010) was correctly shifted by the same 5-year 4-month period to 2015

Regarding the delay in the inquiry, the Tribunal held that CVC guidelines are advisory and do not create indefeasible rights; since the applicant never challenged the delay or the penalty itself at the relevant time, he cannot now bypass the legal effects of that penalty on his service benefits

The OA was dismissed as lacking merit, and the impugned orders dated January 3, 2020 (rejecting the representation) were upheld