Page 1

REPORTABLE          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

   CIVIL APPEAL NO.6072 OF 2012    (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.20296 of 2007)

RAM ASHISH DIXIT ..Appellant(s)

       Versus

CHAIRMAN PURVANCHAL GRAMIN BANK LIMITED AND  ANOTHER   

..Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant herein was appointed as an officer in the  

Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 21.12.1981. He was confirmed  

on  the  post  of  officer  [later  on  designated  as  Junior  

Management  Grade  Scale  I  (JMGS-I)]  in  the  year  1983.   On  

18.12.1991, a charge sheet pertaining to the period from 1984  

to 1990 was prepared against him.  At that time he was posted  

as  Branch  Manager,  Gajpur  Branch,  District  Gorakhpur.   The  

charge sheet alleges that while the appellant was posted at  

Bhatpur  Branch  and  Gajpur  Branch  as  Branch  Manager,  he  had  

committed a serious irregularity in the acceptance/disbursement  

of loan (of a particular account holder).  The gist of the  

charge was that he did not verify the genuineness of the claim  

made  by  the  account  holder  for  the  loan  in  various  small

Page 2

amounts.  The loan amount was to be used by the account holder,  

who  was  an  agriculturist,  for  improving  the  agricultural  

facilities on his farm. On the basis of those imputations it  

was alleged that the appellant has violated, Rules 17 and 19 of  

the  Gorakhpur  Kshetriya  Gramin  Bank  (Employees)  Service  

Regulation, 1980.  It is not disputed before us that the charge  

sheet  was  served  upon  the  appellant  on  7th January,  1982.  

Thereafter a regular inquiry was held against him.  The inquiry  

officer held that the charge No.3 was proved.  Subsequently,  

the disciplinary authority differed with the finding recorded  

by the inquiry officer.  The charge Nos. 1 and 2 were also held  

to be proved against the appellant.  At the conclusion of the  

disciplinary proceedings on 29th August, 1998 the disciplinary  

authority imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment for  

three years and 50% recovery of the sanctioned loan amount in  

case the Bank fails to recover the same from the farmer to whom  

the loan had been grated.  It appears that in a departmental  

appeal filed by the appellant, by Order dated 15th December,  

1998, the appellate authority modified the order of punishment,  

by reducing the amount of recovery from 50% to Rs.5,000/-.  The  

aforesaid order was communicated to the appellant on 7.1.1999.

  During the aforesaid interregnum, the appellant became  

eligible  for  promotion  from  the  rank  of  Junior  Management  

Grade-I to Middle Management Grade-II.  He was duly considered  

for promotion by the departmental promotion committee, which  

was held in the year 1995.  It is the pleaded case of the

Page 3

respondent-Bank, in Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed  

in the  High  Court  (Annexure P-13 in the SLP), that the  

appellant was duly considered for promotion but he could not  

succeed on the basis of the criteria of seniority-cum-merit.  

It appears that another departmental selection committee was  

constituted on 5th September, 1997 when the appellant was also  

duly considered but not approved for promotion. This fact is  

also alluded to by the appellant in his representation dated  

1.9.1999  sent  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Gramin  Bank.  In  this  

representation, he categorically states that in the promotion  

process held in the years 1995 and 1997 he was duly considered  

but not promoted.   

   On 28th March, 1998, the Bank issued Circular No. 63  

prescribing  certain  new  procedures  and  penalties  for  the  

officers  of  the  Bank.   The  aforesaid  Circular  notices  the  

earlier procedure which provided that the officers against whom  

disciplinary  proceedings  are  pending  or  contemplated  or  an  

officer  who  has  been  punished  in  the  recent  past  years  or  

against whom there are any adverse remarks shall be unfit for  

promotion.  It is further noticed that inspite of the aforesaid  

criteria,  “at  the  time  of  deciding  the  competency  of  the  

candidates, they had been called for interview, not keeping in  

view the aforesaid facts.  As per above, even last year, all  

officers were called in interview”.

   The  Circular  further  provides  that  henceforth  the  

departmental promotion committee shall follow the sealed cover

Page 4

procedure  which  is  applicable  in  the  sponsor  Bank.  It  is  

clarified  that  “this  procedure  will  be  applicable  to  the  

earlier sealed cover results and the results to be kept in  

sealed covers in future.”  The Circular further provides that  

where on completion of disciplinary proceedings, an officer is  

punished  with  stoppage  of  increments  or  promotions,  in  such  

cases,  officer  will  not  be  eligible  to  be  considered  for  

promotion  till  after  the  rigor  of  punishment  is  over.   As  

noticed  earlier,  the  appellant  was  duly  considered  for  

promotion  in  the  year  1995  and  he  was  not  found  fit  for  

promotion.  In the year 1997, although he was considered for  

promotion but his result was kept in a sealed cover.  In the  

meantime, the appellant was punished by Order dated 29th August,  

1998.  Apprehending that the Bank may not consider him for  

promotion, the appellant submitted a representation on 19th May,  

1999.  However, it is a matter of record that the appellant was  

actually considered for promotion in the departmental promotion  

committee which was held on 31st August, 1999.  The sealed cover  

procedure  having  been  opened  and  the  appellant  having  been  

punished on the basis of the charge sheet, the appellant in  

view of the Circular No. 63 dated 28.3.1998 was not promoted in  

the year 1999 also.  It was at that stage when the appellant  

filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38084 of 1999 in the High  

Court of Judicature at Allahabad against the action taken by  

the Bank.

 In the writ petition, the appellant had claimed writ in the

Page 5

nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 31.8.1999 and  

2.9.1999 whereby he was informed that he has not been promoted.  

The appellant also sought a writ in the nature of Mandamus  

directing  the  respondent  to  open  the  sealed  cover  result  

adopted in the year 1997.  He made an alternative prayer that  

the petitioner be considered for promotion in the departmental  

promotion committee which was to be held on 6th September, 1999.  

The aforesaid prayers, however, have been rejected by the High  

Court in the impugned judgment and order dated 13th June, 2007.

  Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  the  

appellant ought to have been promoted firstly in the year 1995  

as at that time, sealed cover procedure was not even followed  

by the Bank.  In any event, the appellant ought to have been  

promoted in the year 1997 when the Bank kept his result in a  

sealed  cover  without  any  legal  justification.   Even  if  the  

appellant was not to be promoted in the year 1995 or 1997, the  

name of the petitioner could not have been ignored in the year  

1998 as by that time, the Bank had itself decided to impose  

only minor punishment of “stoppage of one increment” though it  

was for a period of three years.  Having chosen to punish the  

appellant by imposition of a minor penalty of stoppage of one  

increment, the stoppage of promotion of the appellant amounts  

to  double  punishment.   Consequently,  the  action  of  the  

respondents  is  violative  of  Article  14/Article  16  of  the  

Constitution of India.  Learned counsel further submitted that  

the petitioner is entitled to promotion from the back date i.e.

Page 6

1997 when the result of the consideration of the departmental  

promotion committee was illegally kept in a sealed cover.

   Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel and Mr. Rajesh  

Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank have  

submitted  that  the  appellant  was  all  along  facing  the  

departmental proceedings whilst his case for promotion, along  

with  other  eligible  officers  in  his  category,  was  being  

considered for promotion in the years 1995, 1997 and 1999.  The  

appellant having been duly considered in the years 1995 and  

1997  can  have  no  legitimate  grievance  to  complain  of  any  

departmental  action  by  the  respondent  Bank.   It  is  further  

submitted that subsequently, the appellant having been found  

guilty by the inquiry officer and having been punished, the  

appellant cannot complain that his non-promotion would amount  

to a double punishment.  The respondent places reliance on the  

judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India and others  

versus K.V. Jankiraman and others reported in 1991 (4) SCC 109,  

wherein it is clearly held that non promotion of an officer on  

the  basis  of  the  record,  by  taking  into  consideration  the  

punishments  imposed  for  a  misconduct,  cannot  be  

described/categorized as a second punishment.  

  We have considered the submissions made by the learned  

counsel.

  In the facts of this case, it would not be possible to  

agree with the appellant that the action of the Bank is either  

arbitrary or without legal sanction. The appellant did not have

Page 7

any right to be promoted automatically on completion of minimum  

length  of  service.   He  had  to  be  declared  suitable  for  

promotion on the criteria applicable.  At this stage, we may  

usefully  refer  to  the  observations  made  by  this  Court  in  

Paragraph  29  of  the  judgment  in  Union  of  India  and  others  

versus  K.V.  Jankiraman  and  others  (supra) wherein  it  is  

observed as follows:-

“On principle, for the same reasons, 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 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  our  opinion,  the  aforesaid  observations  are  fully  

applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.  

 The criteria for promotion from Junior Management Grade-I  

to Middle Management Grade-II is on the basis of the seniority-

Page 8

cum-merit. Clearly therefore, the fact that the appellant has  

been punished for a misconduct, the same would form a part of  

his record of service which would be taken into consideration  

whilst adjudging his suitability on the criteria of seniority-

cum-merit.  If on such assessment of his record of service the  

appellant is not promoted, it cannot be said to be by way of  

punishment.  It is a non-promotion on account of the appellant  

not reaching a suitable standard to be promoted on the basis of  

the criteria.  In view of the above, we find no merit in the  

civil appeal.  The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                           .....................J.

                           (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

                                 .....................J.                          (H.L. GOKHALE)

New Delhi, August 22, 2012

Page 9

ITEM NO.1               COURT NO.13             SECTION XI

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20296/2007

(From  the  judgment  and  order  dated  15/06/2007  in  CMWP  No.  38084/1999 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)

RAM ASHISH DIXIT                                  Petitioner(s)

                VERSUS

CHAIRMAN PURVANCHAL GRAMIN BANK LTD& ANR          Respondent(s)

(With office report) WITH  SLP(C) NO. 9181-9186 of 2011 [RANI LAXMIBAI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK V. MANOJ KUMAR CHAK] (With  application  for  substitution,  exemption  from  filing  official translation, permission to place additional documents  on record, exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned  judgment, prayer for interim relief and office report)

SLP(C) NO. 9284-9301 of 2011 [SARVA U.P. GRAMIN BANK & ORS. V. SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS.] (With  application  for  interim  relied,  exemption  from  filing  official translation, permission to place additional documents  on record, exemption from filing certified copy of the impugtned  judgment,  substitution,  interim  relief,  prayer  for  interim  relief and office report)

SLP(C) NO. 9306-9309 of 2011 [VIDUR GRAMIN BANK & ORS. V. PARAMJEET SINGH & ORS.] (With  application  for  substitution,  exemption  from  filing  official translation, permission to place additional documents  on record, exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned  judgment, prayer for interim relief and office report)

SLP(C) NO. 9432-9444 of 2011 [RANI LAXMIBAI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK V. SIRAJ AHMED KHAN] (With  application  for  substitution,  exemption  from  filing  official translation, permission to place additional documents  on record, exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned  judgment, prayer for interim relief and office report)

...2/-

Page 10

-2-

Date: 22/08/2012  These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE

For Petitioner(s)   Mr. Abhay Singh, Adv. In SLP20296   Mr. Yasmin Zafar, Adv.                        Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,Adv.

In rest of the matters Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr.Adv. In SLP20296           Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

   Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv.   Mr. Sameer Pradeep Abhyankar, Adv.

   Ms. Anupama Dhruv, Adv.     Mr. Sarv Mitter, Adv.

                     For M/S Mitter & Mitter Co., Advs.

For Respondent(s)   Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr.Adv. In SLP20296           Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

 Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv.        Mr. Sameer Pradeep Abhyankar, Adv.         Ms. Anupama Dhruv, Adv.        Mr. Sarv Mitter, Adv.

                     For M/S Mitter & Mitter Co., Advs.

In SLP 9432-44 &   Mr. K.T. Anantharam, Adv. 9181-86/11   Mr. Vasudevan Raghavan, Adv.

In SLP 9284-9301   Mr. Fakhruddin, Sr. Adv.        Mr. Gopal Krishna, Adv.

 Mr. M.K. Chaudhary, Adv.   Mr. Raj Kishore, Adv.

      Mr. S.K. Verma, Adv.                    

...3/-

Page 11

     -3-

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

SLP(C) No. 20296 of 2007

Leave granted.

The  appeal  is  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  

signed order.

SLP(C) Nos. 9181-9186/2011, 9306-9309/2011

9432-9444/2011 and 9284-9301/2011

Issue notice returnable within four weeks.

Service  to  be  effected  dasti  through  the  

respective  office  where  the  officers  are  

presently posted.

List after four weeks for final disposal.

All the interlocutory applications are to be  

kept with the main matter.

[SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER

[INDU BALA KAPUR] COURT MASTER