Interim protection against demotion is unwarranted where disciplinary and criminal proceedings were pending at promotion.

The petitioner was promoted from Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector by memorandum dated 17 July 2023. At that time, a departmental inquiry was pending under articles of charge dated 21 June 2023, as was a criminal case in Crime No. 173/2019.

On 28 August 2026, the authorities withdrew the promotion and demoted him to Head Constable, stating that the pending proceedings had not been brought to the promoting authority’s notice.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal declined interim relief in O.A. No. 4302/2026. The petitioner sought review of that refusal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a stay of the demotion order pending the Tribunal proceedings.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s refusal to stay the petitioner’s demotion order warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

2. Whether the petitioner had established a prima facie case for interim relief, including by relying on alleged delay in the departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings

The Court considered its supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in reviewing the Tribunal’s refusal of interim relief.

It referred to State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570; Union of India v. Anil Kumar Sarkar, (2013) 4 SCC 161; and Union of India v. Shri Doly Loyi, 2024 INSC 729. As summarised by the Court, those decisions establish that where there is delay in initiating an inquiry or inordinate delay in concluding it, the court may assess the circumstances and grant appropriate relief; whether such delay exists is a matter to be examined in the substantive proceedings.

The Court did not decide that the mere pendency of an inquiry or prosecution either justified or invalidated the withdrawal of promotion.

The Court declined to interfere at the interim stage because it was undisputed that both a departmental inquiry and a criminal case were pending when the petitioner was promoted.

Although the petitioner relied on Supreme Court authorities concerning delay, the Court considered that the question whether the proceedings had been initiated or concluded after inordinate delay should be determined by the Tribunal when deciding the application on its merits. Resolving that question in the writ petition would leave nothing for the Tribunal to consider.

The Court therefore found no prima facie case for staying the demotion order.

It rejected the petition, leaving the Tribunal to examine the delay-related contention when disposing of the substantive application.