- (1.) By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the OA filed by the applicant-respondent herein.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed on a Group-D post on 30th November, 2017 in the department of Posts and Telegraphs. After passing the requisite examination he was promoted and appointed as Sorting Assistant on 4 th December, 1973. There has been no complaint against the work and conduct of the respondent. On 2 nd November, 1999 the respondent was issued a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules to which he replied and the matter was finalized vide letter dated 21st February 2000 and he was imposed a penalty of censure. At the relevant time, the respondent submitted that he became due for grant of promotion under BCR Scheme in the higher pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 as per the DoP letter dated 1 st November, 1991 and he submitted number of representations for grant of his due benefit.
(3.) While considering the case, the Tribunal has observed as under:- "10. We have carefully considered the contentions of both the parties on the issue whether pendency of disciplinary case is a bar for grant of benefit under the BCR Scheme on completion of 26 years of service. We have perused the judgment of Ernakulam Bench in V.V. Kamath's case, wherein the case was that the applicant therein completed 26 years of service much before the service of notice in connection with the disciplinary proceedings. Not only this, even the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and K.V. Janakiraman was not brought to the notice of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal while deciding the case of V.V. Kamath. In the case of K.V. Janaliraman the Apex Court has held that: "The officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if the penalty is other than that of the reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion. He has only a right to be considered for promotion. The promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the leaset that is expected of an employee is to have an unelemished record. That is the minimum expected to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interests. An employee found guilty of a misconduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated differently. The least that is expected of any administration is that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospectively from a date when for his conduct before that date he is penalised in praesenti. When an employee is held guilty and penalised and is, therefore, not promoted at least till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct. In fact, while considering an employee for promotion his whole record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial is not illegal and unjustified. If further, the promoting authority can take into consideration the penalty or penalties awarded to an employee in the past while considering his promotion and deny him promotion on that ground, it will be irrational to hold that it cannot take the penalty into consideration when it is imposed at a later date because of the pendency of the proceedings although it is for conduct prior to the date the authority considers the promotion. ;