RAM SEWAK RANA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman reported in 1992(1) P.L.J.R. 27 the Supreme Court has observed as follows: We are, therefore, broadly in aggrement with the finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceeding.

(2.) In the instant case the case of promotion of the petitioner was not considered by the Departmental Promotional Committee inasmuch as a disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner. There is no dispute that if the said disciplinary proceeding was not pending, the petitioner would have been promoted to the promotional post on 18th September, 1997, The disciplinary proceeding terminated in favour of the petitioner and he was exonerated of all the charges levelled against him. He was found not guilty of any of the charges and even a penalty of censure was not imposed upon him. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was granted the promotion and in terms thereof, the petitioner started discharging his duties on and from 15th September, 2000 in the promotional post and has been paid the financial benefits of the promotional post on and from 15th September, 2000. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking financial benefits of the promotional post on and from 18th September, 1997. The contention of the State is two fold. One of them is that the petitioner was awarded a penalty of censure before he had been promoted. There is no dispute that in relation to a particular year, it was alleged that there had been some defficiency on the part of the petitioner and accordingly; he was asked to show cause. The petitioner submitted his show cause and thereupon the order of censure was passed. The proceeding was concluded under Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Admitedly, this was not the proceeding for which the Departmental Promotion Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. This proceeding was initiated after the Departmental Promotion Committee refused to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner, which consideration if had been made would have resulted in the promotion with effect from 18th September, 1997. The second contention of the State is that in terms of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code, the petitioner is entitled to receive remuneration of the promotional post on and from the date he started discharging the duties of the promotional post. It is true that Rule 58 of the said rules authorises an employee, to draw salary commensurate to the post in which he or she has been appointed on and from the date he discharges such duties, but the fact remains that for no just reason, the petitioner was prevented from discharging his duties in the post to which he was otherwise entitled to. Can it be said that the petitioner is not entitled to remuneration for such post? The Supreme Court has squarely answered the question. If the proceedings, in which punishment of censure had been awarded against the petitioner, was the proceeding for which the departmental Promotion Committee did not to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, of course, the matter would have been different, but having regard to the fact that the proceeding so initiated did not deter the Departmental Promotion Committee to go ahead with the consideration of the case of the petitioner but yet another disciplinary proceeding ' deterred it to do so, the logical conclusion would be that the petitioner, for no just reason, was prevented to discharge his duties in the promotional post from 18th September, 1997.

(3.) In those circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with a direction upon the State to pay to the petitioner the financial benefits of the Promotional Post with effect from 18th September, 1997 and to pay within three months from today the difference in such remuneration for the period between 18th September, 1997 and 15th September, 2000. This disposes of the writ petition.