Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Madhukar Nand, was employed as a Senior Clerk with the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Board. He was denied promotion to the post of Supervisory Clerk on the ground that disciplinary action and criminal proceedings were pending against him. The petitioner had been suspended in 2016 following registration of an FIR under the Indian Penal Code, Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and other Specified Examinations Act, 1982, and Prevention of Corruption Act, but was reinstated in 2017. Two other employees involved in the same case, Mr. Brahmapurkar and Mr. Gaikwad, were promoted to Supervisory Clerk temporarily despite the pendency of proceedings. The petitioner challenged the denial of promotion, arguing that he was similarly situated and should have been considered. The Court observed that the respondents had not followed the sealed cover procedure, which is the appropriate course when an employee is under a cloud. The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion by adopting the sealed cover procedure, with the promotion to be effective from the date it was granted to similarly situated employees, but subject to the outcome of the disciplinary and criminal proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Denial of Promotion - Pendency of Disciplinary/Criminal Proceedings - The petitioner, a Senior Clerk, was denied promotion to Supervisory Clerk solely because disciplinary action and criminal proceedings were pending against him. The Court held that mere pendency of proceedings does not disentitle an employee from being considered for promotion; the employer must follow the sealed cover procedure as per law. (Paras 2-4) B) Service Law - Sealed Cover Procedure - Promotion - The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion to Supervisory Clerk by adopting the sealed cover procedure, keeping the promotion subject to the outcome of the disciplinary and criminal proceedings. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee facing pending disciplinary action and criminal proceedings can be denied consideration for promotion to a higher post.
Final Decision
The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Supervisory Clerk by adopting the sealed cover procedure. The promotion shall be effective from the date it was granted to similarly situated employees, but subject to the outcome of the disciplinary and criminal proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of.
Law Points
- Promotion cannot be denied solely on pendency of disciplinary or criminal proceedings
- Sealed cover procedure for promotion of employees under cloud
- Right to consideration for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16 of Constitution
