KUNHUNNI, K. Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions are referred to the Full Bench:

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are as follows: The Petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Field Assistant in the Regional Nursery of the Rubber Board at Manjeri. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the Board vide its office memorandum dated 29th January 1981 under Rule 11 of the Rubber Board Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1961. Ultimately the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of withholding increment of pay of the Petitioner for a period of two years without cumulative effect by order dated 21st February 1983. In the meanwhile the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the selection of candidates for promotion to the post of Farm Assistant which is a selection post from the Selection Grade Field Assistant with three years experience. In view of the pendency of the Departmental proceedings, the D.P.C. did not recommend the Petitioner for promotion. In the second D.P.C. meeting held on 4th December 1982 the Petitioner was again considered but not recommended for promotion. Since the charges against the Petitioner were proved subsequently and a penalty imposed on him, the findings of the Committee in the sealed cover were also not acted upon. The Departmental Promotion Committee met subsequently on 13th June 1983 but it did not find the Petitioner suitable for promotion. Petitioner's representation was rejected by Ext. P -8 Memorandum dated 19th December 1983 by the Rubber Board stating that his case for promotion can be considered in the normal course after the period of penalty imposed on him is over. Meanwhile the Petitioners appeal against Ext. P -4 order of penalty was rejected by Ext. P -6 order of the Government of India dated 8th February 1985. The Petitioner's first appeal against penalty and second appeal against denial of promotion were considered by the 1st Respondent and while confirming the order of penalty held that the Petitioner is not eligible for promotion during the period of penalty by Ext. P -9 order. The 1st Respondent also found that the D.P.C. did not find him suitable for promotion. The Petitioner is challenging his non -promotion and also the order of penalty as confirmed by the 1st Respondent in these Original Petitions.

(3.) Mr. P. Ravindran, counsel appearing for the Petitioner made the following submissions: