news details |
|
|
| Employee found guilty of misconduct not entitled for promotion: High Court | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sep 9: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekhri holds that an employee ,who is found guilty of misconduct, is not entitled to be promoted.
This judgment has been passed in a LPA filed by Chairman Airports Authority of India against an order and judgment dated 04.05.2022 passed by a Single Judge of this Court in SWP No. 862/2009 titled 'V.P.Saini vs Chairman, Airport Authority of India and others' whereby the Writ Court has allowed the petition of the writ petitioner ['the respondent'] and by a writ of certiorari quashed the proceedings
initiated by the appellants which resulted into penalty of "censure" dated 31.11.2001 against the respondent. The appellants have also been directed by the Writ Court to grant the benefit of next higher scale of DGM (ATC) to the respondent w.e.f 01.10.1999 along with consequential benefits.
DB after hearing DSGI Vishal Sharma with Adv Yatin Mahajan for the Chairman AAI, observed that the respondent is not entitled to the promotion in the face of penalty of 'censure' awarded to him by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 31.10.2001. The observation of the Writ Court, that the 'penalty of censure' being a minor penalty cannot be an impediment in the grant of promotion, is not supported by any law, rather the legal position in this regard is well settled.
DB further observed that the awarding of censure, which may be a minor penalty, is a blameworthy factor and is a reason good enough to deny promotion to an employee. The penalty, whether it is minor or major, is inflicted upon an employee for committing misconduct and an employee ,who is found guilty of misconduct, is not entitled to be promoted. Writ Court appears to have swayed away by the observations of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Jagjit Singh vs. Secretary that delay in conclusion of the departmental proceedings cannot act to the prejudice of the delinquent employee and, in such eventuality, the delinquent employee cannot be deprived of the benefit of promotion on the ground that ultimately after seven years, such employee is visited with penalty of censure. The judgment relied upon by the writ Court is distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, the enquiry was admittedly concluded against the respondent within a period of one and a half year which, by no stretch of reasoning, can be said to be an inordinate delay in completing the same.
With these observations, DB allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment of writ Court. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
