Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + Tri Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI Tri This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (5) TMI 1447 - Tri - Income Tax


Issues:
Promotion denial based on pending complaint, Violation of DOP&T instructions, Withholding promotion without legal grounds

Analysis:
The case involved an officer of the Indian Revenue Service seeking promotion to the grade of Commissioner of Income Tax. The applicant alleged that despite meeting eligibility criteria and having a clean record, the promotion order issued by the respondents excluded his name while promoting his junior. The applicant argued that the respondents unlawfully withheld his promotion based on a pending complaint, which did not fall under the specified categories warranting such action as per DOP&T instructions.

The applicant's counsel contended that the DOP&T guidelines only allow withholding promotion in specific cases like suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings, or criminal charges. Since the applicant did not fall under any of these categories and had received vigilance clearance, the respondents' decision to withhold promotion was deemed illegal. The respondents, in response, acknowledged that the applicant was clear of any disciplinary issues or suspension during the promotion consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents, upon an inquiry from the ACC, discovered a pending complaint against the applicant for which CVC advice was sought. However, as no formal charges were pressed or actions taken falling under the DOP&T guidelines, the Tribunal ruled that the mere existence of a pending complaint was insufficient to justify withholding the promotion. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, the Tribunal held in favor of the applicant, directing the respondents to promote him from the date his junior was promoted, granting him all consequential benefits within six weeks of the order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the respondents had unjustly denied the applicant's promotion based on a pending complaint that did not warrant such action under the established guidelines. The judgment emphasized that mere intentions to initiate major penalty proceedings were not grounds to withhold promotion, thereby ruling in favor of the applicant and ordering his promotion with all consequential benefits.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates