Pendency of disciplinary proceedings and imposition of major penalty preclude claims for notional or retrospective promotion.

The applicant entered service as an Inspector of Central Excise in 1974 and was promoted to Superintendent in 1990.

He was promoted to Assistant Commissioner (AC) on 07.04.2003, though he claimed entitlement from 10.12.2002, the date his junior was promoted.

He further sought promotion to Deputy Commissioner (DC) effective from 10.12.2006 upon completing the requisite four years of service in the feeder grade.

The applicant superannuated on 31.03.2010; notably, a charge memorandum was issued against him on the same day.

In 2014, a major penalty was imposed, involving a 30% pension cut for five years and permanent withholding of gratuity.

A Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held in November 2010 did not consider the applicant as he had retired and was under disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant filed this Original Application (OA) in 2016 after several unaddressed representations.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner retrospectively, despite the initiation of disciplinary proceedings on his date of retirement.

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by the limitation period prescribed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which establishes strict limitation periods for filing applications.

It relied on the principle that promotion is effective only from the date it is actually granted, not from the date a vacancy arises, as affirmed in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharmdeo Das (2024).

The court applied the doctrine that while there is a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself.

The Tribunal also cited State of Kerala v. N.V. Krishnan (2025) to establish that repeated representations do not extend the period of limitation for stale service claims.

The Tribunal reasoned that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the date of retirement effectively excluded the applicant from the zone of consideration for promotion, as he was no longer "clear from a vigilance angle".

Even if his name had been considered by the Review DPC in November 2010, the "sealed cover" procedure would have applied, and the results would remain unopened due to the subsequent imposition of a major penalty.

Regarding the claim of parity with juniors, the Tribunal noted that notional promotion is only grantable if a junior is promoted in clear violation of statutory rules; here, the applicant’s ineligibility stemmed from his own disciplinary cloud.

Finally, the Tribunal found the OA ex facie barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose in 2010, but the applicant approached the Tribunal only in 2016 without a delay condonation application, holding that representations cannot revive a dead claim.

It held that an officer under disciplinary proceedings has no subsisting or vested right to seek retrospective promotion.

The Tribunal further held that the application was legally untenable due to the unexplained six-year delay in filing, which exceeded the statutory limits of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

No order as to costs was made.