The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a judicial officer cannot be denied promotion benefits merely because her promotion was deferred over a complaint. Since no disciplinary proceedings or adverse findings followed, the deferment could not continue affecting her service rights.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a judicial officer cannot be deprived of promotion-related benefits merely because her promotion was temporarily deferred on the basis of a complaint that ultimately resulted in no disciplinary proceedings or adverse findings.
The Court held that once the complaint did not culminate in any action against the officer, the deferment could not continue to adversely affect her seniority and future promotions.
The judgment came in a petition filed by Chhaya Singh, a judicial officer, who challenged the denial of restoration of her original seniority after her promotion to the post of Civil Judge Class-I (Senior Division) was deferred in 2014.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s promotion was not rejected by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Instead, her case was merely kept in a deferred category because of a complaint made by the then Superintendent of Police, Durg.
After receiving the complaint, the petitioner submitted her explanation.
However, no departmental enquiry was initiated, no disciplinary proceedings were instituted, and no adverse order was ever passed against her. Despite this, her seniority was not restored after she was promoted in 2016, affecting her chances of further promotion.
The petitioner argued that she fulfilled all eligibility conditions for promotion in 2014 and possessed satisfactory Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). She contended that since the complaint never resulted in any disciplinary action, there was no justification for permanently denying her seniority. She also challenged the rejection of her representation in 2018, stating that it was a non-speaking order without any reasons.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the writ petition suffered from an unexplained delay of nearly nine years. They contended that the petitioner had accepted her promotion in 2016 as well as subsequent promotions without objection and could not seek retrospective seniority after such a long period.
They further argued that granting retrospective seniority would disturb the settled seniority of several judicial officers and adversely affect third-party rights.
After examining the records, the High Court found that the only reason for withholding the petitioner’s promotion in 2014 was the complaint lodged against her. The Court noted that the complaint never matured into disciplinary proceedings or resulted in any finding of misconduct.
The Court observed that the petitioner was promoted in 2016 on the basis of the same service record and ACRs that were available when the DPC first considered her case in 2014. No fresh material emerged between 2014 and 2016 to show that she had become newly eligible or suitable for promotion.
The Court held that this clearly established that the petitioner was otherwise fit for promotion when her batchmates were promoted in 2014. The only obstacle was the pending complaint, which eventually proved inconsequential.
The Court held,
“Once the complaint did not culminate in any disciplinary proceedings, enquiry, punishment or adverse finding, the deferment ceased to have any legal significance. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer adverse service consequences merely because her case was temporarily deferred pending consideration of a complaint that ultimately proved inconsequential.”
The High Court also rejected the respondents’ argument that the petitioner’s claim should fail because she did not separately challenge the rejection of her representation.
After examining the communication dated February 21, 2018, the Court found that the representation had been rejected through a cryptic order that merely stated the claim was not fit to be accepted without assigning any reasons.
The Court emphasised,
“Reasons are the heartbeat of every administrative or quasi-judicial decision and ensure transparency, fairness and accountability in decision-making. An order affecting valuable service rights, such as seniority and promotional prospects, cannot be sustained when it is completely devoid of reasons.”
Addressing the issue of delay and laches, the Court observed that disputes relating to promotion, seniority and service benefits have continuing civil consequences throughout an employee’s career. Therefore, such claims cannot always be rejected merely on technical grounds of delay.
The Court further held that the petitioner’s subsequent adverse ACR gradings could not be relied upon because her entitlement had to be assessed on the basis of the service record that existed in 2014, when the promotion exercise took place.
The Court concluded,
“Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that once the complaint, which formed the sole basis for deferment of the petitioner’s case, did not result in any disciplinary action or adverse finding and the petitioner was subsequently found fit and promoted, the respondents were not justified in allowing the deferment to operate to her detriment for all future purposes. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be denied consideration for consequential service benefits solely on account of such deferment.”
While deciding the case, the High Court relied upon several important decisions of the Supreme Court, including Major General H.M. Singh v. Union of India, Union of India v. Doly Loyi, and Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman.
Referring to K.V. Jankiraman, the Court reiterated that the sealed cover procedure can be adopted only after issuance of a charge memo or charge-sheet and that mere pendency of a complaint or preliminary investigation is insufficient to deny promotion.
ALSO READ: “A Judge Is a Judge”: Delhi High Court Slams Lawyer for Shouting at Trial Court Judge
The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court’s observation in Major General H.M. Singh v. Union of India, wherein it was held,
“The question that arises for consideration is, whether the non-consideration of the claim of the appellant would violate the fundamental rights vested in him under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The answer to the aforesaid query would be in the affirmative… if the appellant was the senior most serving Major General eligible for consideration, he most definitely had the fundamental right of being considered against the vacancy, and also the fundamental right of being promoted if he was adjudged suitable. Failing which, he would be deprived of his fundamental right of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws extended by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Holding that the petitioner could not continue to suffer because of a complaint that never resulted in any disciplinary action, the High Court ruled that the temporary deferment of promotion could not permanently deprive her of consequential service benefits and seniority.
Case Title: Chhaya Singh v. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors.