Ishwar Pal Singh vs Punjab National Bank
2006 Latest Caselaw 362 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. Issue Rule. Mr. Rao Advocate waives notice of the Rule on behalf of respondent.

2. With consent of the counsel for parties, the writ petition was heard finally.

3. The petitioner in these proceedings seeks a direction to quash the order dated 16.1.2002 declining to consider him for promotion to the Grade of MMG-III.

4. The petitioner was appointed as a direct recruit officer by the respondent, Punjab National Bank (hereafter called as 'the Bank) on 29.12.1980 in the post of Junior Management Grade-I (JMG-I). As per the existing Promotion Rules, the officers in the Grade of JMG-I had to put in minimum seven years' service including two years in a rural branch to be eligible for consideration to the promotional post of MMG-II (Middle Management Grade-II). The petitioner was promoted to the Grade of MMG-II on 13.1.1990. The next promotion was to the scale of MMG-III for which the eligibility provided inter alia was five years in the Grade of MMG-II.

5. Whilst the petitioner was working in the scale of MMG-II he was suspended from service and charge sheeted for misconduct. Two departmental proceedings were held; the petitioner was found guilty in respect of both the charge sheets. By an order dated 24.9.99 the competent authority imposed a penalty of reduction to the post of JMG-I. The other charge sheet also culminated in guilt; the petitioner appealed. The appellate authority, by its order dated 24.3.2000 modified the penalty which was for reduction to one stage earlier in the time scale of pay for one year with further directions that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction was to have effect of postponing future increments of pay. The petitioner has challenged orders passed by the disciplinary authority by filing WPC No. 2018/2003 which are pending disposal before this Court.

6. The petitioner was promoted to the scale of MMG-II on 26.11.2001. Mr. Bhalla learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order declining the petitioner's request for consideration to be promoted to the Grade of MMG- III (which is the promotional channel for MMG scale-II), is arbitrary since it has effect of completely effacing the 9 years period of service between 13.1.1990 to 20.4.1999. He also submitted that even if the penalty order was to be given effect, the petitioner at best would have had the wait for two years as per Rule 12(2) of the Promotion Rules, which postpones consideration of an officer, upon whom penalty is imposed, for a period of two years.

7. The counsel contended that the position taken by the respondent bank is illogical and irrational because the period of service put in between 1990 to 1999 cannot be ignored. It was submitted that if the respondent's stand were to be taken to its logical conclusion, the petitioner's consideration for promotion as MMS-II would have arisen only after completion of seven years of service. The bank however, granted him promotion on 26.11.2001 immediately after completion of two years of service in scale of JMG-I.

8. Learned counsel contended that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had put in nine years' service which according to him included the requisite rural service. Therefore, that service, as MMG-II had to be taken in to consideration and could not, by any stretch of imagination be completely ignored or overlooked.

9. Counsel also submitted that as per clause 10 of the Promotion Regulations of the respondent Bank, the performance appraisal for promotion prescribed was for a period of three years. Admittedly, the petitioner was considered and promoted as MMG-II in 2001 after consideration of his previous record for three years. Out of the three years, two years were in the post of JMG-I and one year i.e. 1998-99 was the period when the petitioner had admittedly worked as MMG-II prior to his reduction in rank. It is therefore, contended that the respondent had acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner.

10. Mr. Rao learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent bank submitted that the petitioner had been considered for MMG-III on two separate occasions on 26.1.1998 and 8.6.1999 but since disciplinary proceedings were pending, results were kept in a sealed cover. The recommendations were not given effect having regard to the punishment of reduction in rank by the disciplinary authority on 24.9.1999.

11. It was also submitted that the petitioner was promoted to MMG-II after minimum waiting period prescribed in Rule 12(2) and he accepted promotion in that Grade unreservedly. Counsel denied the submissions that the stand of the bank is irrational and illogical. Counsel submitted that the issue before the court is not the eligibility for MMG-II since there is no dispute about the quality or character of service put in by the petitioner as JMG-I between 1980 and 1990. Counsel submitted that the controversy here is whether after reduction in rank the official concerned can insist that the entirety or even part of the previous service should be counted as matter of right while reckoning eligibility for consideration for promotion to MMS-III. It was submitted that if the contention were to be accepted the meaning of penalty itself would lose effect to.

12. Before proceeding to consider merits, it would be necessary to extract the relevant provisions of the Promotion Regulations. The eligibility for promotion to various posts has been spelt out in a separate clause which reads as follows:-

ELIGIBILITY:

A. NUMBER OF YEARS OF SERVICE AND RURAL/SEMI-URBAN SERVICE REQUIRED:

As per the guidelines of the Government dated 23rd June 1986, the minimum eligibility in terms of the number of years of service for promotion from one scale to another shall be as under:

i) From JMG Scale-I to MMG Scale-II:

7 years of satisfactory service in JMG Scale-I, provided the Officer has put in a minimum of two years service as an Officer in a rural branch.

ii) From MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III:

5 years of satisfactory service in MMG Scale-II, provided the Officer has put in a minimum of 3 years service as an Officer in a rural/semi-urban branch. This period of 3 years is inclusive of 2 years of rural branch experience prescribed for promotion from JMG Scale-I to MMG Scale-II.

iii) From MMG Scale-III to SMG Scale-IV:

5 years of satisfactory service in MMG Scale-III.

B. The minimum eligibility in terms of the number of years of service for promotion will be reckoned as on 1st April, in case the selection is initiated during the half year 1st April to 30th September or 1st October, in case the selection is initiated during the half year 1st October to 31st March.

13. The performance appraisal of every employee which the bank has to take into consideration, as per clause 10, is as follows:-

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL:

i) It shall be the responsibility of every Officer to submit his annual performance appraisal report in the prescribed format to his immediate reporting authority during the month of April every year. If an Officer fails to submit his performance appraisal report for any year, his performance shall be assessed and reviewed by the authorities on their own based on available records.

ii) If an Officer's performance is rated as unsatisfactory, the rating as well as the reasons therefore be communicated to him in writing to enable him to improve himself.

iii) If the Officer is aggrieved with unsatisfactory rating awarded to him, he may appeal to the Managing Director within 45 days of receipt of the communication regarding unsatisfactory rating. The Managing Director may consider the appeal and convey the decision preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of appeal.

iv) The performance appraisal reports of the preceding 3 years will be considered for the purpose of awarding marks for promotion from one scale to another. Unsatisfactory rating in any of the preceding 3 years shall render the Officer ineligible for promotion.

14. The consequences arising out of imposition of penalty which is perhaps the most important provision as far as these proceedings are concerned, have been provided for in clause 12 which reads as follows.

CONSEQUENCES ARISING OUT OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY:

i) MINOR PENALTY:

An Officer who has been imposed two minor penalties during the preceding 3 years will not be eligible for promotion for a period of one year from the date on which the second minor penalty was imposed.

ii) MAJOR PENALTY:

An Officer who has been imposed more than two minor penalties or one major penalty during the preceding 3 years will not be eligible for promotion for a period of two years from the date on which the third minor or major penalty was imposed.

iii) The eligibility or otherwise, on account of imposition of penalties referred to above, shall be reckoned on 1st April for selection initiated during the half year 1st April to 30th September or; 1st October for selection initiated during the half year 1st October to 31st March.

iv) In case an Officer is otherwise eligible and his case has been approved for promotion by the competent authority for approving promotions, but he has been awarded minor penalty of 'withholding promotion', his promotion will be released only after the expiry of the stipulated period for which the promotion had been withheld by the Disciplinary Authority.

15. The facts are undisputed. The petitioner was admittedly promoted as MMG-II after having put in the requisite qualifying service in the scale of MMG-I. By the order dated 24.9.1999 he was imposed with the penalty of reduction in rank which resulted in his being reverted to the post of JMG-I. As a consequence, a clause 12(2) became applicable which meant that he became ineligible for promotion for the period of two years. The two years period, operated from 24.9.1999 to 23.9.2001. The bank considered his case on the basis of records and promoted him to the post of MMG-II i.e. the original post which he was holding till 1999. The question therefore, is whether the petitioner can legitimately claim for promotion to MMG-II, on the basis of his entire length of service for the period of nine years between 1990 to 1999. Though there cannot be any dispute during that such period, the petitioner did work as MMG-II and also drew salary, increments etc, the fact remains that he stood reverted to the lower post in 1999.

16. If the petitioner's contentions were to be accepted that it would imply that in spite of an employee's disability arising on account of penalty he would straightway become eligible after the waiting period, to be promoted to the post of MMG-III. This would have to be the logical corollary because there is no method by which previous nine years service can be segregated. On the other hand, the contentions of the bank that the major penalty would operate as a bar for consideration for promotion to the next post is more plausible and rational. The disability arising out of reversion in my opinion cannot be diluted or broken up as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner. Upon his reversion and being reduced to the post of JMG-I by operation of Rule 12(2), his consideration for promotion could be only in respect of post of MMG-II and not to any other post. If on the parity of such reasoning, it is considered that the petitioner can insist that he became immediately eligible for the post of MMG-III soon after his promotion to MMG-II, the efficacy of the penalty would cease. I am not persuaded to accept the submissions of petitioner because not only is it contrary to logic but also undermines the rationale behind the imposition of a major penalty like reversion or reduction in rank. The reduction in rank, (while penalty of withholding of increments for a specific time) does not operate for a limited time, upon expiry of which the incumbent gets back the higher post. The penalty operates in future and would entitle consideration of the official for further promotion as per rules.

17. In the light of the above conclusions, I am of the opinion that the reliefs claimed here cannot be granted. However, in view of the pendency of the other writ petition, it is made clear that in the event of the petitioner's success in WPC No. 274/2001, the respondent bank shall consider his case in accordance with its Rules and pass suitable orders so far as claim for promotion is concerned.

18. The petition is accordingly dismissed; no costs.