it2025_00889 — Penalty of withholding of increment takes effect only from the date of increment accruing to the officer after the issue of punishment orders

Penalty of withholding of increment takes effect only from the date of increment accruing to the officer after the issue of punishment orders — This chunk pertains to an applicant's dispute over the rejection of his promotion in 2020, due to a penalty imposed in 2018, as per the order dated 14-8-2018. The applicant argues that the penalty ha... — Facts: The Applicant, a Group ‘B’ officer working in the Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, was accused of assembling about 50 Dockyard Supervisors along with members of the All India Naval Technical Supervisory Staff Association (AINTSSA) in front of senior officers’ offices on 12-4-2012 over the issue of payment of overtime arrears, allegedly in violation of the prescribed grievance redressal procedure. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, culminating in the imposition of penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, vide order, dated 14-8-2018. Subsequently, in March 2020, the Respondents issued a promotion list from Foreman (Const.) to Technical Assistant (Const.) based on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), wherein six juniors of the Applicant were promoted. One such junior was further promoted and transferred vide order, dated 1-12-2020. Aggrieved by being superseded, the Applicant submitted a representation seeking promotion on par with his juniors. However, the Respondents rejected his representation vide order, dated 12-4-2021, declaring him unfit for promotion for the year 2020 due to imposition of penalty of withholding of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The Applicant contended that the rejection order is contrary to DoP&T OM, dated 10-4-1989, as the penalty had already run its course by September, 2019 and could not lawfully be used to deny him promotion thereafter. The Respondents contested the OA by submitting that a Memorandum, dated 24-10-2012 was issued to the Applicant initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Following the inquiry, considering the inquiry report and relevant records, the Competent Authority imposed the penalty of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect vide order, dated 14-8-2018. The Respondents clarified that the penalty could take effect only from the date the next increment became due, i.e., 1-7-2019, and not retrospectively. The increment already granted on 1-7-2018 could not be withdrawn. Reliance was placed on Rule 11

(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Accordingly, the punishment operated from 1-7-2019 to 30-6-2020, and the Applicant’s contention that the penalty concluded in September 2019 was therefore incorrect. During this punishment period, the promotion panel was issued on 16-3-2020. Since the Applicant was still undergoing penalty, he was not considered for promotion, while eligible juniors were considered. Further, although the Applicant stood at Sr. No. 8 in the eligibility list for DPC year 2019, the seven available vacancies were filled by his seniors. For DPC year 2020, he was assessed as “unfit” due to the subsisting penalty. The Respondents relied upon the judgments in Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman [ AIR 1991 SCC 2010 ], Union of India v. S.K. Goel [ Civil Appeal No. 689/2007-SLP(C)-2410/2007 ], State of Tamil Nadu v. K.S. Murugesan [ (1995) 3 SCC 273 ] and a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision to justify their action. The Applicant filed a rejoinder and contended that as per DoP&T OMs, he ought to have been considered by the DPC despite the penalty, though promotion could be deferred during its currency. He alleged that the required number of officers were not considered and that the DPC’s assessment and UPSC guidelines were not disclosed to him, even after seeking the information through RTI. The Respondents also filed sur-rejoinder reiterating their earlier submissions. The learned Counsel for the Applicant once again submitted that the Applicant had already received an increment on 1-7-2018 and that the penalty order, dated 14-8-2018 withholding one increment for one year with cumulative effect became operative from the next increment date, i.e. 1-7-2019 and remained in force till 30-6-2020. Since the DPC met on 16-3-2020 during the currency of the penalty, the Applicant was ineligible for promotion. Reliance was placed on Para. 6 of niti’s Handbook on CCS (CCA) Rules and also Rule 102 of Postal Manual Vol. III.