Promotion Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Pendency Of Criminal Or Disciplinary Proceedings Before Issuance Of Charge Sheet: Gauhati High Court
The High Court reiterated that denial of promotion solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal or disciplinary proceeding is impermissible unless the proceedings have reached the stage of issuance of a charge sheet.
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that the benefit of promotion cannot be withheld merely because a criminal or disciplinary proceeding is pending against an employee, unless such proceedings have reached the stage where a charge sheet has been issued.
The High Court was hearing a writ appeal arising from the dismissal of a challenge to the promotion process from Scale-VI to Scale-VII in a public sector insurance company, where the appellant alleged supersession on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings against one of the promoted officers.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, while referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, reaffirmed that “the benefit of promotion cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceeding is pending against the employee” and clarified that denial is permissible only when the proceedings have reached the stage of issuance of a charge sheet.
Senior Advocate K.N. Choudhury appeared for the appellant, while K. Phukan, Central Government Counsel, represented the respondents.
Background
The appellant, an officer of the respondent insurance company, challenged the promotion of several private respondents to Scale-VII, contending that he was superseded despite being senior and having secured higher marks in certain parameters of evaluation.
One of the principal grounds raised by the appellant was that a criminal case was pending against one of the promoted officers at the time of the promotion exercise, and therefore, such an officer ought not to have been promoted.
The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge after examining the promotion records, leading to the present writ appeal before the Division Bench.
Court’s Observation
The Gauhati High Court examined the Promotion Policy governing advancement from Scale-VI to Scale-VII and noted that Clause 7.2 expressly mandates that promotion to Scale-VII shall be based solely on merit, while seniority is to be respected in accordance with Clause 7.1.
Upon scrutiny of the records produced, the Court found that the promotion exercise was conducted through a multi-tiered evaluation involving screening, assessment of work record, seniority, and interview, all within the parameters prescribed under the Promotion Policy.
Addressing the contention regarding pendency of criminal proceedings, the Court relied on the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, wherein it was held that the sealed cover procedure and denial of promotion can be resorted to only after issuance of a charge memo or charge sheet, and not at the stage of preliminary investigation or mere registration of an FIR.
The Court observed that in the present case, no charge sheet had been issued against the concerned officer at the time of promotion, and the criminal case had subsequently culminated in the filing of a closure report. The officer was also not under suspension when considered for promotion.
Reiterating the settled principle, the Bench held that pendency of proceedings, without formal initiation by way of a charge sheet, does not create a legal embargo on promotion and cannot be used to deny promotional benefits.
The Court further relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharmdeo Das, Union of India v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan, and Union of India v. A.K. Narula to emphasise that judicial review in promotion matters is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the assessment, unless mala fides, arbitrariness, or bias is established.
Conclusion
The Gauhati High Court concluded that the promotion process was conducted in accordance with the Promotion Policy, that all candidates were assessed using the same parameters, and that no procedural illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fides was demonstrated.
Holding that promotion cannot be denied merely due to pendency of criminal or disciplinary proceedings prior to issuance of a charge sheet, the Court dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge.
Cause Title: Lathrang Born Buam v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:16867)
Appearances
Petitioner: K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate; S.P. Sharma, Advocate
Respondents: K. Phukan, Central Government Counsel; Zorawar Singh, Advocate
