Court’s Decision:
The Telangana High Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s candidature for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, “as and when the promotion process takes place”. The Court found the exclusion of the petitioner from the promotion list, solely on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings despite the exoneration by the Enquiry Officer, to be arbitrary.
Facts:
The petitioner was initially appointed as a PH Health Worker in 2006 and was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant/Village Revenue Officer in 2011. He became eligible for further promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as early as 2013, having completed more than two years of regular service, passed departmental tests, and fulfilled other criteria under Rule 10 of the Telangana Municipal Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules.
In 2018, a charge memo was issued against the petitioner for alleged irregularities in processing tenders. He submitted an explanation, asserting that he was not the competent authority for the alleged acts. Seventeen other municipal employees were issued similar charge memos. An Enquiry Officer, appointed to probe the matter, submitted a report on 29.12.2022 exonerating the petitioner of all charges. However, final orders were not passed.
Despite being shown as eligible in the seniority list, the petitioner was excluded from consideration for promotion in 2020 and again in 2025, with the reason being the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. His representation for consideration dated 18.06.2025 also went unanswered, prompting him to file the writ petition.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner’s exclusion from consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant was legal when disciplinary proceedings remained pending without final orders despite an exoneration report from the Enquiry Officer.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner contended that he was fully qualified and eligible for promotion and had been unfairly denied consideration solely due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. He pointed out that:
- The disciplinary enquiry had concluded, and the Enquiry Officer had found no charges proved against him.
- No final orders had been passed even after nearly three years of the enquiry report.
- His name was excluded from the seniority list solely due to the pending status of disciplinary proceedings, which was arbitrary and in violation of service rules.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The Government Pleader for Services–I submitted that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion under the terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and pass orders in accordance with law.
Analysis of the Law:
G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 governs the consideration of promotions in cases where disciplinary proceedings are pending. It permits consideration of eligible candidates for promotion with the condition that the outcome of the disciplinary case, if adverse, would affect the promotion retrospectively.
The Telangana Municipal Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules (G.O.Ms.No.236 dated 12.12.2022) provide that promotions to the post of Senior Assistant shall be from among Junior Assistants who fulfill the requisite service and qualification criteria.
Precedent Analysis:
Though the Court did not cite any precedents in this short order, the underlying principle aligns with settled law from multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court that pendency of disciplinary proceedings without conclusion or final orders cannot be a ground for indefinite denial of promotion when the delinquent has been exonerated in the enquiry.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court accepted the petitioner’s argument that despite the Enquiry Officer having submitted a report exonerating the petitioner in 2022, the respondents failed to pass a final order, and yet continued to show the disciplinary proceedings as pending. It found this inaction as unreasonable. The Court agreed with the suggestion of the respondents’ counsel that the petitioner’s case could be considered under G.O.Ms.No.257 and directed such consideration to be done in accordance with law.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, and pass appropriate orders as and when the promotion process takes place.
Implications:
This judgment reiterates that mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings without passing of final orders, especially when an employee has been exonerated in the enquiry report, cannot be a valid ground to stall promotions indefinitely. The ruling protects the rights of government servants from administrative inaction and ensures promotions are not unjustly withheld.
FAQs:
1. Can promotion be denied solely due to pending disciplinary proceedings?
No. As per G.O.Ms.No.257, promotion can be granted provisionally, and its effect reversed if the outcome of the disciplinary case is adverse. Mere pendency without conclusion is not a valid ground.
2. What happens when the Enquiry Officer exonerates the employee but no final order is passed?
Such delay cannot justify treating the disciplinary case as pending. If the Enquiry Report finds no charges proved, the proceedings must be closed formally. Otherwise, it results in arbitrary denial of rights.
3. What relief can an employee seek if promotions are denied despite eligibility and exoneration?
The employee can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to the authorities to consider the case for promotion in accordance with applicable rules and government orders.
Cases Referred:
G.O.Ms No.257 dated 10.06.1999 – This Government Order provides the framework for considering the promotion of employees facing disciplinary proceedings. The Court relied entirely on this order to resolve the dispute and issued a direction accordingly.
