The Karnataka High Court Circuit Bench in Dharwad.
Credit: DH Photo
Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of the high court has said that in service jurisprudence, mere contemplation of disciplinary proceedings can never be equated with pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while directing the state-owned Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) to accord promotion within eight weeks to an assistant accounts officer with effect from 2018.
The petitioner Maruthi Rao had joined service in 2001 as junior assistant and was promoted to the post of assistant accounts officer in September 2001.
Between 2012 and 2014, he was placed under suspension for three months pending disciplinary proceedings.
In April 2018, the cases of all eligible officers for promotion to the post of accounts officer from the cadre of assistant accounts officer were assessed.
While all his juniors were promoted, Rao’s case was placed in a sealed cover on the score that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated.
He moved the high court after his July 2024 representation, requesting to be considered for promotion was not considered.
It was submitted that the charge sheet was issued on October 29, 2021, and that he did not suffer any ineligibility on April 16, 2018, when the departmental promotion committee met to consider the cases of promotion.
It was said that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as he was only placed under suspension once and the same was revoked four years prior to the assessment.
On the other hand, KPTCL argued that since the charge sheet is pending, his case would be considered after the closure of departmental enquiry.
Justice Nagaprasanna said the promotional prospects of an otherwise eligible officer could not be sealed or deferred solely on the basis of a contemplation.
“It is by now well settled that departmental proceedings are deemed to commence only upon the formal issuance of a charge sheet — neither the act of suspension nor the issuance of a showcause notice has the effect of initiating disciplinary proceedings,” he said.
The court said, “In the case at hand, the charge sheet was issued only on 29.10.2021, nearly four years subsequent to a meeting of the departmental promotion committee, which had, on 16.04.2018, accorded promotion to the juniors of the petitioner. The petitioner on the said date, admittedly did not suffer any disqualification and yet his case was excluded for promotion. A charge sheet surfacing years after the departmental promotion committee convened, cannot retrospectively deprive the petitioner of a promotion that he was rightfully due and ought to have been granted upon the fair assessment of his representation”.