Promotion cannot be denied due to non-grant of vigilance clearance once the currency of penalty has expired.

The applicant, Md. Azim Ansari, a District Youth Officer, was originally imposed with a minor penalty on February 13, 2020 (stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect)

On appeal, the Appellate Authority modified the penalty on December 10, 2021, to stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect

During the interim, DPCs were held on May 31, 2021, and November 2, 2021, for promotion to Deputy Director. The applicant was found "unfit" because he was under the cloud of the original penalty and was denied vigilance clearance

The applicant challenged his non-promotion, arguing that since the modified penalty’s currency ended on February 12, 2021, he was eligible for promotion when the DPC met on May 31, 2021

1. Whether the respondents were justified in denying the applicant promotion based on a penalty whose effective currency had expired prior to the DPC meeting due to subsequent modification by an Appellate Authority

2. Whether the Office Memorandum dated October 9, 2024, regarding the denial of vigilance clearance for three years post-penalty, is applicable to promotion DPCs

The court relied on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated April 28, 2014, which mandates that an officer should not be deemed ineligible for promotion merely because increments were withheld unless the specific penalty of "withholding promotion" was imposed; rather, the DPC must assess suitability based on the overall record

The court also examined the Office Memorandum dated October 9, 2024, which lists specific administrative actions requiring vigilance clearance (e.g., empanelment, deputation, VRS) but excludes promotion from its exhaustive applicability clause

Additionally, the court applied the principle that a modified penalty takes effect from the date of the original order, effectively resetting the currency period

The Tribunal found that the Appellate Authority’s modification of the penalty to one year without cumulative effect meant the penalty was only operational from February 13, 2020, to February 12, 2021

Consequently, by the time the DPC convened on May 31, 2021, the applicant was no longer under the currency of any penalty

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' reliance on the October 9, 2024, OM, noting it pertains to specific purposes like "deputation" or "sensitive posts" and does not override the general DoPT guidelines that govern promotions in the context of minor penalties

The court reasoned that since the applicant was penalty-free on the date of the DPC, the respondents’ failure to grant vigilance clearance based on an expired penalty was legally flawed

The respondents were directed to convene a Review DPC relative to the meeting held on May 31, 2021, and consider the applicant for promotion to Deputy Director within three months. Consequential benefits are subject to the applicant being found eligible by the Review DPC