Quashing of disciplinary proceedings due to bias – Restoration of promotion benefits from 2001 – Contempt not made out but compliance directed – No limitation bar on further claims

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – High Court exercised power to quash disciplinary proceedings (Para 21)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – No Willful Disobedience Found – Court Ordered Compliance Instead of Punishment (Para 32)

Banking Regulations & Service Rules – Promotion Rules – Scale-II to Scale-III – Quashing of Disciplinary Action Resulted in Claim for Retrospective Promotion (Para 14, 23)

Decision & Ratio Decidendi:

• Disciplinary proceedings were quashed due to procedural bias – Appellant suffered due to no fault of his own (Para 24).
• Bank failed to comply with the true intent of the High Court’s order – Merely paying ₹19,446 was not sufficient (Para 28).
• Promotion from 2001 was a direct consequence of quashing of proceedings – Bank should have automatically restored the benefit (Para 25, 26).
• No contempt was made out – Since there was ambiguity, the employer was given final opportunity to comply (Para 32).
• Appellant allowed to pursue further promotions without limitation bar (Para 31).

Final Directions:

• Promotion from Scale-II to Scale-III to be restored from 28.07.2001 with full monetary benefits (Para 30).
• 6% per annum interest on financial benefits from the respective due dates (Para 32).
• Further claims for higher promotions not barred by limitation (Para 31).

Issues of Law:

• Whether an employee was entitled to retrospective promotion and monetary benefits after quashing of disciplinary proceedings? (Para 23)
• Whether contempt of court was made out for non-compliance with the High Court’s order? (Para 18)
• Whether the appellant’s subsequent promotions (2012 onward) affected his claim for benefits from 2001? (Para 14)

Submissions of the Appellant:

a. Once disciplinary proceedings were quashed due to bias, all consequential benefits, including promotion from 2001, should be granted (Para 14, 26).
b. Bank’s failure to restore promotion caused financial and career loss (Para 14).
c. Relied on C.O. Arumugam v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 199 – Promotion must follow once charges are set aside (Para 14).
d. Relied on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 – Sealed cover must be opened when proceedings are quashed (Para 14).

Submissions of the Respondents:

a. Promotion was cancelled in 2002, but the appellant never challenged this cancellation in writ proceedings (Para 15, 16).
b. High Court granted "consequential benefits" but not explicit retrospective promotion (Para 16).
c. Relied on Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491 – Relief cannot be granted if it was not pleaded (Para 15).
d. Relied on Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs v. P. Ravi Kumar, 2024 INSC 957 – Contempt court cannot go beyond the original order (Para 17).

Subjects:

Disciplinary Proceedings Quashed – Promotion Restoration – Consequential Benefits – Contempt Not Made Out – Procedural Bias – Monetary Compensation – Limitation Not Applicable