Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the denial of promotion of a police officer from Assistant Sub-Inspector to Sub-Inspector. The appellant contended that his case for promotion should have been considered with effect from October 1, 1982, but he was confirmed only with effect from January 4, 1989. The respondents resisted the claim on the grounds that in 1983 the appellant was charged under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was kept under suspension, and was communicated adverse remarks for the period from June 7, 1980 to March 31, 1981. According to the respondents, the appellant became eligible for promotion as Sub-Inspector only with effect from December 16, 1985, and was consequently promoted in 1989. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the appellant's original application, upholding the respondents' position. On appeal, the Supreme Court directed the production of Departmental Promotion Committee records. Perusal of those records revealed that the DPC had denied earlier promotion solely because of the criminal prosecution under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the related departmental inquiry. It was not disputed that the departmental inquiry related to the same offence. The criminal case ultimately ended in acquittal on merits, which became final. The departmental inquiry itself was dropped by the respondents. The Court reasoned that an acquittal on merits removes the blot on the employee's service and obviates the need for a departmental inquiry. It recognized the settled law that authorities may conduct a departmental inquiry on the same allegations only when the acquittal is on technical grounds, not when it is on merits. Since the sole ground for denying promotion was the criminal prosecution which no longer subsisted after merit acquittal, and the departmental inquiry had been dropped, the foundation of the DPC's decision was clearly illegal. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to promotion as Sub-Inspector with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Effect of Acquittal on Merits - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5(2) - The appellant, a police officer, was denied promotion to Sub-Inspector based on a criminal prosecution under Section 5(2) and a related departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court held that once the acquittal was on merits, the delinquent is entitled to reinstatement as if there is no blot on his service and the need for departmental inquiry is obviated. It reiterated settled law that departmental inquiry on the same allegations is permissible only when acquittal is on technical grounds. (Paras 1-2) B) Service Law - Promotion - DPC Cannot Rely on Non-Subsisting Grounds - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5(2) - The Departmental Promotion Committee denied promotion solely on the basis of the criminal prosecution and departmental inquiry. After the criminal prosecution ended in acquittal on merits and the departmental inquiry was dropped, the very foundation of the DPC's decision became illegal. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to promotion with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether denial of promotion to Sub-Inspector based on a criminal prosecution under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and a related departmental inquiry was legal after the employee was acquitted on merits and the departmental inquiry was dropped; and whether the employee was entitled to promotion with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted with all consequential benefits.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order, and held that the appellant is entitled to promotion as Sub-Inspector with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Acquittal on merits removes blot on service and obviates need for departmental enquiry
- departmental enquiry permissible only if acquittal is on technical grounds
- DPC cannot rely on non-subsisting grounds such as a dropped departmental enquiry and merit acquittal to deny promotion
- employee entitled to promotion from date immediate junior promoted with all consequential benefits
