Direction to decide representation for ante-dation of promotion following judicial modification of disciplinary penalty.

The applicant, an Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police, was previously dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings

This dismissal was subsequently set aside by the Hon’ble High Court and substituted with a lesser penalty: the forfeiture of two years of permanent approved service

The applicant contends that under established law and departmental standing orders, this punishment should have been implemented from the date of the original dismissal order

However, the respondents implemented the penalty from a later date, which allegedly delayed the applicant's promotion to Inspector (Executive)

The applicant submitted a representation seeking ante-dation of his promotion, which the respondents have not yet decided

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant's pending representation regarding the ante-dation of his promotion to the post of Inspector (Executive)

The Tribunal referred to the legal principles settled in Union of India and Ors. vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 109, which addresses the rights of employees regarding promotion and the implementation of penalties

It further relied upon the internal Standing Orders of the Delhi Police, which dictate that specific punishments should be given effect from the date of the original order of dismissal when such orders are subsequently modified

The Tribunal avoided an adjudication on the merits of the applicant’s claim for ante-dated promotion

Instead, it focused on the administrative delay in responding to the applicant’s grievance.

The court noted that the applicant had already completed the substituted punishment and had formally requested the respondents to reconsider his promotion date in light of the K.V. Jankiraman precedent and departmental rules

Since the applicant expressed satisfaction with a direction for a time-bound disposal of his representation, the Tribunal determined that the competent authority must exercise its quasi-judicial function to issue a reasoned decision

The respondents are ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's order

The Tribunal further directed that the present OA be treated as a supplementary representation during the decision-making process

No orders were made as to costs