Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent had suffered punishment of increment cut without cumulative effect for a period of 3 months vide proceedings dated 29.02.2012 and the same was given effect to from 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2013. In addition to this, the third respondent does not possess the qualification prescribed for the post of Deputy Transport Commission, for, he did not serve for 5 years as RTO, besides, he did not have one year experience as Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, or Secretary, State Transport Appellate Tribunal or Departmental Representative, State Appellate Tribunal. However, the petitioner possesses all those above qualifications prescribed under the Act for the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner. Therefore, it is not known as to why the respondent has not considered the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner. Hence, it is contended, such an approach of the official respondents is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

11. Per contra, Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that at the time of entry into the services in the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-II in Transport Department, the petitioner was junior to the third respondent, as he had joined the duty as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II on 09.08.1993, whereas the third respondent had joined the duty on 24.08.1987 and his services were regularised with effect from 16.07.1993 and further promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I on 11.03.1998. Moreover, the third respondent and the petitioner came into the zone of consideration for inclusion of their names in the temporary list of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-I fit for promotion as Regional Transport Officer for the panel year 2006-2007 and the petitioner was promoted as Regional Transport Officer and joined the duty on 28.03.2008. While drawing the panel for promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer for the panel year 2006-2007, the name of the third respondent was included at Serial No.5 and the said panel was issued in G.O.(2D) No.197, Home (Tr-II) Department, dated 28.03.2008. However, before the actual promotion, the third respondent was issued with a charge memo dated 27.03.2008, which was served on 31.03.2008, hence, his promotion was deferred and subsequent to this, his name was not included for the panel year 2008-2009 also, besides, passing over of his name in the subsequent panel years as well. Finally, the disciplinary proceeding against the third respondent was concluded with a punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 months without cumulative effect by the second respondent vide his proceedings dated 29.02.2012. In view of this, the third respondent was not considered for inclusion in the panel year 2012-2013 as the crucial date for the said penal was on 01.07.2012. Subsequent to the completion of the above said punishment, the third respondent became eligible for inclusion in the subsequent panels. However, due to administrative reasons, NIL panel was drawn for the post of RTO for the panel year 2013-2014, but, only for the year 2014-2015, a panel was drawn up for the said post only in the year 2017. In the meanwhile, seniority of 6 Motor Vehicle Inspectors, Grade-II, who were appointed during the year 1987 on compassionate grounds including the third respondent, were placed below the names of 65 directly recruited Motor Vehicles Inspectors, Grade-II, who were appointed during the year 1992-93.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that as per the provisions of the Act 2016, the third respondent, having suffered the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 29.02.2012 is not entitled to get the promotion through the impugned order, for the reason that even though, he has completed the punishment by undergoing the above said penalty, he would further suffer the embargo of 5 years check period consequent to the issuance of the said punishment dated 29.02.2012, since the promotion order dated 17.08.2016 falls within the check period.

 If a member of service is imposed with punishment for irregularity or delinquency that were committed 5 years prior to the crucial date shall be considered for promotion or appointment to the post, if the member of service is not undergoing such a punishment on the crucial date or on the date of consideration for actual punishment. The above provision makes it clear that prior to the crucial date i.e. 01.07.2006, there was no misconduct committed by the third respondent. The order of minor punishment dated 29.02.2012 against the third respondent with stoppage of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect, would come to an end on 31.05.2012. However, contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.10950 of 2012, dated 14.09.2012, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.921 of 2015, dated 29.07.2015, the said punishment order was implemented by the second respondent only with effect from 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2013. Had the authorities implemented the order of punishment in a timely manner against the third respondent, the question of applying the check period of five years would not have arisen, as it would have ended up by 31.05.2017 itself and therefore, in such a scenario, the challenge made by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 09.06.2017 on the ground of five years check period would not stand to logic. Therefore, for the mistakes committed by the authorities, which has been fairly admitted by the learned AAG, the third respondent cannot be punished by way of applying the check period. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the embargo of five years check period would stand against the third respondent also falls to ground.