REGARDING DENIAL OF PROMOTION
M. PIRAVI PERUMAL
(Querist) 21 May 2010
This query is : Resolved
An government employee has been denied promotion by the employer for the reason that he was given minor punishment in earlier period during his service. I heard that the Madras High Court as well as the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in a judgement has held that " PROMOTION CANNOT BE DENIED TO AN EMPLOYEE FOR THE REASON THAT HE WAS PUNISHED FOR A MINOR OFFENCE EARLIER IN HIS SERVICE ". I need the above judgement or any judgement on the same lines either by Madras High Court or Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Learned LCI member please help me by providing entire text of the judgements or citations in the above subject.
P.ESAKKIMUTHU
(Expert) 21 May 2010
1.Kindly refer to 2007-II-LLN-667(Madras HC) for "PETITIONER GIVEN MINOR PUNISHMENT-AT THE SAME TIME HIS NAME IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SENIORITY LIST-DIRECTION ISSUED TO INCLUDE THE NAME IN THE SENIORITY LIST"
2.Kindly refer 1988 II LLJ 360 SUPREME COURT for "
DOUBLE PUNISHMENT DENIAL OF PROMOTION.
SEE ALSO1993-I-LLN-327 & 1994-II-LLN-79."
The above judgements may be relevant to your requirement.
Murali Krishna
(Expert) 22 May 2010
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on an order dated 09.01.2009 in W.P. No. 23751 of 2008, which in turn relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Subramanian v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 350. The relevant para from the said judgment is extracted here-under:
"11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that consequential prayer made in the writ petition for a direction to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion may be granted. He would submit that as per the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Subramanian v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Chennai and Ors. 2008 (5) MLJ 350, when the employee is imposed upon a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect which could be construed only as a minor punishment, he could not be denied further promotion solely based on the same, if he is otherwise fit for promotion. The law laid down by the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for his name to be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration provided he possess the other qualifications and if he satisfies the other legal requirements.
I hope this judgement will help you. You can also refer to K.V.Janakiraman Judgement, (1991)4 SCC 109.
