Minor penalty of censure for non-integrity lapses cannot justify denial of retrospective regularization.

The Applicant was appointed as a Driver in the DMMS Unit, Erode, on 31.12.1982 and served continuously without break

Although he completed his probationary period on 01.05.1984, the Respondents confirmed his services only effective from 01.07.1988

The Applicant sought retrospective regularization from the date of completion of his probation (01.05.1984), citing parity with similarly placed drivers who had received such benefits through prior Tribunal orders

Following a representation dated 27.08.2018 and a subsequent direction by the Tribunal in OA 132/2019 to pass a speaking order, the 3rd Respondent issued the impugned order dated 18.06.2019 rejecting the claim

The Respondents justified the delay citing "unsatisfactory work and conduct" due to a minor penalty of 'Censure' and the availability of vacancies

1. Whether a minor penalty of 'Censure' for a lapse not involving integrity constitutes a valid ground to deny retrospective regularization upon completion of a probationary period

2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the advancement of his regularization date to 01.05.1984 based on the principle of parity with similarly situated employees

The Tribunal applied the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

It distinguished between disciplinary actions, noting that while a penalty affecting integrity may adversely impact an Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) and delay regularization, a minor lapse or mere negligence does not legally bar regularization

The Tribunal also adhered to the principle of parity, requiring that employees in identical circumstances be granted the same service benefits regarding retrospective regularization

The Tribunal analyzed the Respondents' argument that the Applicant's "unsatisfactory conduct" (a minor penalty of 'Censure') justified the four-year delay in confirmation

The Bench observed that the material on record showed the 'Censure' related only to a minor lapse and did not involve integrity

The Tribunal reasoned that such minor negligence should not prevent regularization, especially when the Applicant had completed his probation period

It further found that the Respondents’ refusal to grant the benefit was arbitrary because similarly situated drivers had already been granted retrospective regularization

The Tribunal concluded that the reasoning in the impugned order could not be sustained given the peculiar facts and the nature of the penalty

It held that a minor penalty for negligence is not a valid ground to deny the advancement of regularization

The Tribunal directed the Respondents to regularize the Applicant’s services with effect from 01.05.1984 instead of 01.07.1988

this retrospective regularization shall be applicable only for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits

No order as to costs was made