Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxman Prasad Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12844 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
LAXMAN PRASAD RAJAK S/O SHRI CHABBILAL RAJAK,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEMINATED
ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR KRISHI UPAJ MANDI
SAMITI DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY DR.ANUVAD SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P. MANDIR
BORAD 26 HILLS KISAN BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JOINT DIRECTOR JABALPUR REGIONAL OFFICE
OF MANDI BOARD NEAR T.V. TOWER KATANGA
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAM BHAJAN LODHI - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
denied the benefit of Kramonnati/Time Scale of Pay, which became due in
favour of the petitioner in the year 2018. Vide judgment dated 29.8.2022 passed
in Sessions Trial No.23/2016 (State versus Laxman Prasad Rajak), the petitioner
was convicted for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 with an imprisonment for five years and fine etc by the Court of learned
1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori. The aforesaid conviction will not relate
back to the date of eligibility, which is since 2018 and, therefore, there being no
retrospective application of the order of conviction and the petitioner should
have been given the benefit of Time Scale of Pay.
Learned counsel for the respondents, in his turn, submits that the
conviction of the petitioner will relate back to the date of registration of the
offence, which is of the year 2015. The petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2015
and was given benefit of bail on 21.1.2016. He was in custody for a period of
42 days and by operation of the rules framed for suspension by virtue of he
being in custody for more than 48 hours, he was deemed to have been placed
under suspension.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material
available on record.
It is evident that the petitioner's conviction will relate back to the date of
registration of the FIR in a cognizable offence. Since that event is prior to the
date on which the petitioner became eligible for grant of Time Scale of Pay and
while granting the Time Scale of Pay, which is as good as granting promotion,
the past conduct of the petitioner is to be taken into consideration. The
impugned order denying the benefit of Time Scale of Pay cannot be faulted
with.
The aforesaid view finds support from the fact that as a general principle,
pendency of a disciplinary proceeding or a criminal prosecution against an
employee is a reasonable and relevant ground for withholding promotion until
the proceedings are over. In the presnt case, the proceedings were underway
since 2015 when criminal case was registered against the petitioner.
The Apex Court in Union of India versus K.B.Janakiraman (1991) 4
SCC 109 has observed a fact that at the conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings or the criminal prosecution, a penalty or sentence is imposed and
at the same time, promotion is denied or deferred does not offend the rule
against double jeopardy contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
In this context, the Apex Court has observed as under:-
''29. To qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an
employee is to have an unblemished 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.''
Thus, in view of the said legal position, denial of career advancement,
which is akin to promotion, cannot be faulted with in view of pendency of the
criminal case and the consequent conviction.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
