'Check Period' After Minor Punishment Illegal; Employee Entitled To Promotion Consideration : Madras HC

Background Facts

The employee was working in the School Education Department. He had been issued a charge memo, which resulted in a punishment of postponement of increment for one year. Therefore, when the panel for promotion to the post of Superintendent was prepared in April 1987, his name was not considered. Later, the employee approached the High Court in 2017 seeking notional promotion to the post of Superintendent from 01.04.1987 and further promotion as Personal Assistant to the District Educational Officer from 05.12.1991.

The Single Judge allowed his writ petition. The Department challenged that order through a Writ Appeal, but the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the Department filed the Review Application challenging the dismissal of appeal.

It was contended by the Department that the Division Bench had failed to consider that when the promotion panel for 1987 was drawn, the respondent was still under the pending charge memo and punishment period. According to the Department, the employee's punishment imposed in 1985 justified withholding his name from the promotion list.

Therefore, the request for consequential promotion in 1991 became non maintainable. The Department argued that these facts were never brought to the notice of the Writ Court.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the employee that the Department had no justification to deny him promotion in 1987.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the punishment imposed on the respondent in December 1985 had already come to an end by March 1986. It was noted by the Court that the Department had denied him promotion in 1987 by invoking a five-year check period, which was no longer legally sustainable.

Referring to the judgment in DIG of Police & Another v. V. Rani, it was held by the Court that the concept of a check period after the expiry of a punishment is illegal and cannot be used to withhold promotional consideration.

It was further noted by the Court that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had correctly granted the respondent notional promotion from 01.04.1987 and the consequential promotion thereafter. It was held by the Court that no error was apparent on the face of the record . With the aforesaid observations, the Review Application filed by the department was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Others v. N.K. Shankar

Case No. : Rev. Aplc (MD) No.54 of 2021 & C.M.P. (MD) No.5972 of 2021 in W.A.(MD)No.1526 of 2019

Counsel for the Petitioners : P. T. Thiraviam, Government Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent : N/A