2023 (1) TMI 443 - HC - Indian Laws

Withholding of promotion of the respondent-employee - pendency of departmental proceedings - HELD THAT - Apparently, the petitioners have succeeded in their endeavor to deny the respondent-employee the benefits of promotion, as firstly they chose to file the review to prolong the proceedings for almost a period of one year. Thereafter, after the review was dismissed they chose not to file the writ petition for a period of almost six months and only filed the same on 03.05.2017. An argument as such was raised before the Coordinate Bench on which notice motion was issued that a punishment order had been imposed on 15.02.2017. Petitioners is not aware as to whether the case of the employee for promotion had been considered or not - It is, thus, apparent that the respondent-employee has also lost interest in the litigation as none has put in appearance, as he has taken voluntary retirement. The department as such proceed in a manner which is unbecoming of a department and rather the whole litigation has been continued to deprive a person of his right of consideration for promotion. However, the respondent-employee is not present - Thus, we do not wish to further comment upon the fact as to how he has been prejudiced by his own officers. Even otherwise, it is apparent that the order of the Tribunal was an innocuous order and the present writ petition has now been rendered infructuous due to the intervening circumstances. There are no ground to interfere in the order of the Tribunal - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to order withholding employee's promotion due to pending departmental proceedings.
2. Employee's voluntary retirement and subsequent departmental actions affecting promotion.
3. Allegations of abuse of power and delay in departmental proceedings.
4. Contempt proceedings for non-compliance with court directions.
5. Consideration of employee's promotion post voluntary retirement.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal withholding the promotion of the respondent-employee due to pending departmental proceedings. The petitioners argued that the promotion should be subject to the outcome of the proceedings. A subsequent departmental order withholding pay increments was passed, leading to the filing of the present petition.
2. The employee voluntarily retired during the course of the proceedings. Previous legal actions, including a review and a dismissed challenge in the High Court, were mentioned. The employee had faced issues with promotions to higher posts, leading to legal challenges and delays.
3. The defense claimed that departmental proceedings were initiated with the liberty granted earlier, but the process was deemed an abuse of power by the authorities for not communicating crucial information to the employee. This was seen as an attempt to deprive the employee of promotion consideration.
4. Contempt proceedings were suggested due to non-compliance with court directions regarding promotion consideration within a specified time frame. The court noted discrepancies in the handling of the case by the authorities, indicating a potential contemptuous action.
5. The court observed that the employee had lost interest in the litigation due to voluntary retirement. Despite acknowledging departmental shortcomings, the court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order, ultimately dismissing the writ petition as infructuous due to intervening circumstances and the employee's retirement.