STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SECY. TO GOVT., REVENUE DEPT. (REGISTRATION) AND THE INSPECTOR GEN. OF REGISTRATION COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS Vs. M.L. KAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent joined service as Sub -Registrar w.e.f. 26.04.1976 and she was promoted subsequently as Senior Sub -Registrar w.e.f. 28.04.1989. Based on certain allegations the respondent was kept under suspension in the year 1992 and departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent on 24.07.1997 by issuing Articles of Charge. Pursuant to departmental enquiry the respondent's promotion was over -looked by the Departmental Promotional Committee and her juniors were promoted and on 16.8.2000 the enquiry was concluded and the respondent was imposed with punishment of one increment with cumulative effect. Consequently, no promotion was granted to the respondent. Once again on 18.5.2002, the Officials of Lokayuktha raided the office of the respondent. Based on certain allegations again the departmental enquiry was sought to be held on 23.12.2002 and Articles of Charge was served on the respondent and others by Lokayuktha. In the meanwhile, the Departmental Promotional Committee once again over looked the promotion of the respondent. On 14.6.2006 another departmental enquiry was sought to be held against the respondent and the same is still pending consideration. It is relevant to note that the enquiries which were started in the years 2002 and 2006 are not yet completed. Consequently the respondent was not promoted to next higher post of Head Quarters Assistants. Hence the respondent moved the KAT in application No. 2214/2009 praying for necessary direction. The Tribunal has concluded thus: - 10. In that view of the matter, we allow the Application and direct the respondent to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the next higher post of HQA or placing her in Independent charge under rule -32 of the KCSRs., depending on the promotion or independent charge given to the government servants junior to the applicant in the seniority list, without reference to the pending inquiries and if she is found fit for promotion or independent charge, she should be given the benefit with prospective effect. The promotion shall be subject to the review of promotions upon conclusion and out -come of the inquiries.

(2.) IT is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Advocates on record that the respondent has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service in the year 2011. Therefore, the prayer of the respondent for promotion has to be considered for the purpose of monetary and pensionary benefits only. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, JT (1995) 2 SC 18 has held the delay in the matter of conclusion of the inquiry should not come in the way of the government servants for promotion if he is otherwise entitled to. The Apex Court in another matter i.e., in the case of Coal India Ltd., vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra reported in 2007 AIR SCW 2662 has expressed similar view. Relying upon the aforementioned judgments the Tribunal has concluded as mentioned supra.

(3.) WE do not find any ground to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. Even till this date it seems the departmental enquiries i.e., of the years 2002 and 2006 are not completed. No reason is forthcoming as to why there is delay in concluding the departmental enquiries. Because of the delay on the part of the State to conclude the departmental enquiries the official should not be penalized. In this view of the matter, we pass the following: - ORDER The departmental enquiries, if any, pending consideration against the respondent shall be completed as early as possible but not later than the outer limit of six months from this date. If the delay is not on account of omission and commission on the part of the respondent during enquiry, her claim for being placed in the next higher post of HQA under Rule 36 of KCSRs shall be considered on merits. Since the respondent has already retired from service, the promotions, if any, accorded would be for the purpose of monetary and pensionary benefits only. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with the above observation.