Promotion Deferment Based On Complaint That Never Led To Action Cannot Prejudice Judicial Officer: Chhattisgarh High Court Restores CJM’s Claim For 2014 Promotion
The Court directed for reconsideration upon finding that she was promoted in 2016 on same service record that existed when complaint-based deferment occurred.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that deferment of a judicial officer’s promotion solely on the basis of a complaint, which does not culminate in any departmental enquiry, disciplinary proceedings or adverse finding, cannot be allowed to operate permanently to the officer’s detriment. The Court directed reconsideration of the promotion claim of Chhaya Singh, presently posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband, from the date her batchmates were promoted.
The petitioner, appointed as Civil Judge Class-II in 2008, was denied promotion to Civil Judge Class-I in 2014 after her case was placed in the deferred category due to a complaint by the Superintendent of Police, Durg, regarding a judicial order directing registration of an FIR. Although no disciplinary action followed and she was promoted in 2016 on the same service record, her original seniority was not restored, causing her rank to fall from 14th to 47th in her batch.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed, “…the petitioner was otherwise fit and eligible for promotion when her batchmates were promoted in the year 2014. The only impediment was the pendency of a complaint which ultimately resulted in no adverse action whatsoever. In such circumstances, the deferment of her case could at best have been temporary and precautionary in nature. Once the complaint did not culminate in any disciplinary proceedings, enquiry, punishment or adverse finding, the deferment ceased to have any legal significance. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer adverse service consequences merely because her case was temporarily deferred pending consideration of a complaint that ultimately proved inconsequential”.
“…Mere deferment of consideration, which was founded solely upon a complaint that did not culminate in any adverse action, cannot be permitted to operate permanently to the detriment of the petitioner's service career…”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate T.K. Jha appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Ashish Surana appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner was appointed Civil Judge Class-II in 2008 and became eligible for promotion to Civil Judge Class-I after completing the requisite five years of unblemished service. In the promotion exercise of 2014, her case was kept in the "deferred" category solely on account of a complaint filed by the Superintendent of Police, Durg, relating to a judicial order she had passed directing registration of an FIR.
The Court found that nothing on record showed any new material had emerged between 2014 and 2016 that rendered the petitioner suitable for promotion only at the later date.
“…Therefore, once the petitioner was ultimately found fit and suitable for promotion on the basis of the very same material which was available at the time of the promotion exercise conducted in the year 2014, this Court finds no justifiable reason as to why she was denied promotion when 54 her batchmates were promoted.”, the Bench said.
“…It is now well settled that reasons are the heartbeat of every administrative or quasi-judicial decision and ensure transparency, fairness and accountability in decision-making. An order affecting valuable service rights, such as seniority and promotional prospects, cannot be sustained when it is completely devoid of reasons”, the Bench further noted.
While placing reliance on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 and Union of India and Others v. Doly Loyi 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2613 the Court held that the sealed cover procedure applicable to pending disciplinary proceedings requires an actual chargesheet to have been issued, which never occurred in the petitioner's case.
The communication dated February 21, 2018 rejecting her representation was found to be a cryptic, non-speaking order devoid of reasons and therefore unsustainable.
The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion with effect from August 14, 2014 and to examine her claim for restoration of seniority and consequential benefits, with a reasoned order to be passed within three months.
Cause Title: Chhaya Singh v. High Court of Chhattisgarh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:26195)
Petitioner: T.K. Jha and Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocates.
Respondents: Ashish Surana, Abhishek Gupta, Gourav Singhal, Aman Kesharwani, Raja Sharma, Aditi Parakh and Smriti Ekka, Advocates.