Promotion may be deferred when disciplinary proceedings are pending against the employee.

The respondent, A. Samuvel, challenged the Transport Commissioner’s order dated 19 February 2024, by which his promotion to the post of Superintendent was deferred in the promotion panel for 2016–2017.

His name appeared at Serial No. 20 in the deferred list, with the reason that a Tribunal disciplinary proceeding (“TDP Case”) was pending in R.No.1949/VA2/2019.

The Single Judge allowed his writ petition in W.P. No. 5029 of 2024 by order dated 22 July 2024.

The Transport Commissioner preferred the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging that order.

During the appeal, it was brought to the Court’s notice that the respondent had subsequently been removed from service.

Whether the Transport Commissioner was justified in deferring the respondent’s promotion to the post of Superintendent for the 2016–2017 panel on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him.

Whether the subsequent removal of the respondent from service affected the sustainability of the order deferring his promotion and warranted setting aside the Single Judge’s order.

The Court applied the service-law principle that an employee’s promotion may be deferred where disciplinary proceedings are pending during the relevant promotion process and the employee is therefore not eligible for consideration in accordance with the applicable promotion procedure.

The Court further recognised that the subsequent removal of the employee from service was a material factual circumstance supporting the decision not to grant promotion.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that, when the promotion panel for 2016–2017 was prepared, disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were pending before the Tribunal.

Consequently, his name was placed in the deferred list rather than being considered for promotion.

In light of the additional fact that the respondent had subsequently been removed from service, the Court held that there was no infirmity in the Transport Commissioner’s order dated 19 February 2024 deferring his promotion.

The factual basis for the deferral therefore justified interference with the Single Judge’s contrary order.

The writ order dated 22 July 2024 in W.P. No. 5029 of 2024 was set aside, the writ appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.