Pending criminal prosecution bars promotion; retrospective consideration may follow acquittal.

The applicant qualified in the 2016 Lower Grade Official Examination for promotion to Postal Assistant. His promotion was withheld after a charge-sheet was filed against him in Gauripur P.S. Case No. 22/2015; two junior candidates were promoted in September 2016.

He was acquitted in that case on 6 July 2023 and sought promotion retrospectively from 19 September 2016, with consequential benefits.

In an earlier OA, the Tribunal had held that he was not entitled to promotion alongside the selected candidates unless acquitted or found fit by the DPC.

The respondents opposed the present claim, relying on a separate criminal case, Dhubri P.S. Case No. 1627/2021, which remained pending.

The applicant argued that the later case did not affect his claim arising from 2016.

Whether the applicant was entitled to retrospective promotion as Postal Assistant from the date his junior was promoted, following his acquittal in the criminal case that had led to the withholding of his promotion.

Whether the pendency of a separate criminal case against the applicant justified withholding vigilance clearance and promotion at that stage.

The Tribunal relied on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 2 November 2012, which states that vigilance clearance for promotion may be denied where a government servant is under suspension, faces pending disciplinary proceedings after issuance of a charge-sheet, or is subject to pending criminal prosecution.

It also referred to the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 14 September 1992 and Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, concerning consideration for promotion where disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending; the Tribunal noted the sealed-cover procedure for the DPC’s findings in such cases.

Although the applicant had been acquitted in the case that initially prevented his promotion, the Tribunal found that a different criminal case—Dhubri P.S. Case No. 1627/2021—was still pending against him.

Applying the DoPT instructions on vigilance clearance and pending criminal prosecution, it concluded that the respondents were not at fault in withholding clearance and that it could not direct promotion while that case remained undecided.

The Tribunal left the applicant’s claim for retrospective promotion open for consideration if he was acquitted in the pending case.

It stated that, if the applicant is acquitted in Dhubri P.S. Case No. 1627/2021, his case may be considered for promotion from the date his junior, Kailash Choudhury, was promoted.

The OA was disposed of, with no order as to costs.