The appeal challenges a High Court decision that dismissed a contempt petition, finding compliance with previous orders. The core issue revolves around the appellant’s promotion from Scale-II to Scale-III, which was initially kept in abeyance due to disciplinary proceedings. Although the disciplinary proceedings were later set aside by a Single Judge, the bank cancelled the promotion, a cancellation not initially challenged in the writ petition. The Supreme Court ultimately finds that the appellant is entitled to the promotion from the original date in 2001 with monetary benefits, deeming the bank’s actions as non-compliant with the earlier court order.
Constitution of India, Article 14 – Service Law – Retrospective promotion – Disciplinary inquiry – Penalty – Reduction in pay by 1 stage in a time scale for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension – Setting aside of penalty – Consequential benefits – In contemplation of the disciplinary enquiry, the appellant participated in the exercise for promotion from MMG/S-II to MMG/S-III and that his promotion was kept in abeyance – It is very clear that he was promoted and the promotion was kept in abeyance – After the penalty was imposed in the disciplinary proceedings and confirmed right up to the Reviewing Authority, the learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings and ordered that the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits – Pending the Writ Petition, the appellant was promoted in 2012 from Scale-II to Scale-III and he assumed the promoted post – Claim for benefit of promotion from MMG/Scale-II to MMG/Scale-III with effect from 28.07.2001 with all monetary benefits to the appellant – Only compliance made by the respondents was to pay the amount of Rs. 19,446/- being the reduction in pay for three years – The learned Single Judge set aside the disciplinary proceedings on a ground for which the appellant was not at fault – A junior officer, who was competing for promotion with the appellant, was made the enquiry officer and a clear case of likelihood of bias was made out by the appellant and it was accepted by the learned Single Judge – The employer Bank did not even contest this position before the Division Bench and merely wanted the question of law to be left open – The appellant was not at fault for the defect in the enquiry – No fresh enquiry was initiated nor was any liberty sought from the Division Bench – Held that appellant cannot be denied the benefit of promotion from 28.07.2001 when he was ordered to be promoted but which order was kept in abeyance and which was cancelled only because of the result of the enquiry – Contention on behalf of the respondent that there were no pleadings about the illegality of the cancellation order and no prayer for setting aside the order of cancellation was made repelled – Held that on the facts of this case such relief will be encompassed in the phrase “consequential benefits” which the learned Single Judge clearly granted – In any event, ends of justice cannot be sacrificed on the altar of technicalities – Ordered that the appellant should be granted the promotion with effect from 28.07.2001 for the post of Manager Grade-III with all monetary benefits since the fundamental defect in the enquiry was due to no fault of the appellant.
(Para 20 to 30)
K. Samba Moorthy V. Sanjiv Chadha
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 110: (DoJ 27-01-2025)
