Where disciplinary proceedings postpone the first ACP, the second ACP is correspondingly deferred.

The original applicant, Ram Mani Tripathi, joined the Films Division as a Lower Division Clerk on 5 June 1980.

His legal heirs were substituted after his death.

Following disciplinary proceedings, his first financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme was granted with effect from 22 June 2006; he was also granted second and third financial upgradations under the Modified ACP (MACP) Scheme from 1 September 2008 and 5 June 2010, respectively.

The applicant sought a second ACP from 22 June 2006, relying on condition 15 of the ACP Scheme, and challenged the rejection of that claim.

The respondents maintained that the first ACP had been deferred because of disciplinary proceedings and was granted from the date on which the Departmental Screening Committee found him fit.

Whether the applicant was entitled to a second ACP from the date on which his first ACP was granted, on the basis of condition 15 of the ACP Scheme.

Whether condition 4 of the ACP Scheme applied because the first ACP had been postponed due to disciplinary proceedings, thereby deferring the second upgradation.

The Tribunal applied the Government of India’s Office Memorandum dated 9 August 1999 introducing the ACP Scheme.

Condition 15 provides that an employee who has completed 24 years of regular service may receive the second financial upgradation without waiting for 12 years after the first upgradation, subject to condition 4.

Condition 4 provides that where the first upgradation is postponed because the employee is found unfit or because of departmental proceedings, the second upgradation is correspondingly deferred.

The Tribunal also referred to DoPT’s clarification on point of doubt 48, in OM No. 35014/1/97-Estt(D)(Vol.IV) dated 18 July 2001, under which an upgradation in such circumstances is allowed from the date of the Screening Committee meeting held after imposition of the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s first ACP had been postponed because of disciplinary proceedings and was granted from 22 June 2006, the date of the Screening Committee meeting at which he was found fit.

Although condition 15 could otherwise permit a second ACP after 24 years of service, it expressly operates subject to condition 4.

Because the first ACP had been deferred, condition 4 also deferred the second upgradation; condition 15 therefore did not entitle the applicant to a second ACP on the same date as the first.

The applicant had not challenged either the effective date of the first ACP or the applicable instructions.

It dismissed the OA as devoid of merit, disposed of the associated miscellaneous applications, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.