Subsequent Penalty Cannot Affect Promotion Against Vacancies That Arose Prior To Issuance Of Punishment Order: Rajasthan High Court

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that any penalty had an impact on the promotion to be granted to the employee. However, such impact shall be on the promotions to be granted subsequent to the date of issuance of penalty and not for promotions against which the vacancy had accrued prior to issuance of the penalty order.

"It goes without saying that any penalty whether major or minor, has its effect, as per prevailing rules and circulars, over the promotion to be granted to the employee, yet it is settled that such penalty shall have its effect on promotions to be granted subsequent to date of issuance of penalty order and not in respect of promotion which is to be granted against the vacancy accrued on a date prior to issuance of penalty order".

For context, the respondent employee was imposed with a penalty in July 2024. Subsequently, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met for considering the promotion of the petitioner against vacancies of 2023-24. However, his candidature was rejected on the ground of the penalty imposed in July 2024.

This was challenged by the respondent before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”), which ordered the State to promote the respondent, if he was found eligible otherwise. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State before the Court.

The State argued that as per a circular dated July 26, 2006 issued by the Department of Personnel, the effect of the penalty imposed on the respondent was deferment of promotion for one year.

On the contrary, the respondent submitted that the relevant date of starting the past 7 years for which the records of the candidate had to be seen, was the date of determination of vacancies to the relevant post, and not the date of the incident.

In this background, it was argued that the promotion was being considered for vacancies against the year 2023-24, and the penalty was imposed thereafter in July 2024. Hence, respondent's records for past 7 years should have been seen from the date of determination of vacancies, and not from the date of evaluating him for such promotion.

After hearing the contentions, the Court agreed with the arguments put forth by the respondent and held that,

“Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the intention of circular issued by DOP was that for the purpose of record of 7 years, the date of incident would be relevant and in case, even charge-sheet has been issued and departmental enquiry is pending against any employee in past 7 years from the date of determination of vacancy, then in compliance of circulars dated 26.07.2006 and 04.06.2008, his promotion is liable to be deferred; in considered opinion of this Court, is totally unfounded and baseless.”

It was opined that the effect of any penalty shall be on such promotions that are to be granted subsequent to the date of penalty order, and not for such promotions against which vacancy arose prior to such penalty.

Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal was upheld and the petition filed by the State was dismissed.

Title: Principle Secretary & Ors. v Dalbir Singh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 220