1991 INSC 0559
                                             Union of India and others

                                                           Vs

                                                     K. Krishnan

                                          Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 1991

(CJI Ranganath Misra, G. N. Ray, Dr. A. S. Anand, M. H. Kania, M. M. Punchi, Yogeshwar Dayal,
                                 L. M. Sharma J. S. Verma, S. C. Agarwal JJ)

                                                      20.11.1991

                                                     JUDGMENT

1. The delay is condoned and special leave is granted.

2. The respondent is a postman. He appeared at the required test for the purpose of promotion to the
Postal Assistants'cadre. He was successful at the test but before the order for his promotion could be
issued he was found guilty in a disciplinary proceeding, and was punished by withholding of
increment in salary for a period of one year and six months. As a result of this penalty the decision
to promote him was not implemented. He made an application before the Central Administrative
Tribunal for a direction to the present appellants to promote him. Following the decision in Parveen
Kumar Aggarwal v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, (1985) 8 Admn. Tri. Cas 496, and
another unreported judgment, the Tribunal allowed his prayer holding that he was entitled to be
promoted with effect from 1-12-1989 with consequential benefits and directed the appellants to
promote him without delay, on the ground that the denial of promotion to the respondent amounts to
a second punishment which is not permissible. This judgment is under appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the provisions of Rule 157 of the Post and
Telegraph Manual - Volume Ill, which inter alia provides that even where the competent authority
considers the candidate fit for promotion in spite of punishment in a departmental proceeding, the
promotion shall not be given effect to during the currency of the penalty. The learned Counsel for
the respondent in reply reiterates the ground mentioned in the impugned judgment.

4. We have considered the matter closely and in our opinion the view taken by the Tribunal both in
the impugned judgment and in the earlier decisions holding that as a result of the provisions of Rule
157 forbidding the promotion of a State employee during the currency of the penalty results in a
second punishment, is not correct. There is only one punishment visiting the respondent as a result
of the conclusion reached in the disciplinary proceeding leading to the withholding of increment,
and the denial of promotion during the currency of the penalty is merely a consequential result
thereof. The view that a Government servant for the reason that he is suffering a penalty or a
disciplinary proceeding cannot at the same time be promoted to a higher cadre is a logical one and
no exception can be taken to Rule 157. It is not correct to assume that Rule 157 by including the
aforementioned provision is subjecting the government servant concerned to double jeopardy. We
do not find any merit in the argument that there is no justification or rationale behind the policy; nor
do we see any reason to condemn it as unjustified, arbitrary land violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. On the other hand, to ipunish a servant and at the same time to promote
him during the currency of the punishment may justifiably be termed as self-contradictory. The
impungned judgment is, therefore, set aside.

5. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the parties that except for the above punishment, the
respondent is fit for promotion and that the currency of the penalty will expire on 14-9-1990. In that
view he may be promoted immediately thereafter with effect from 15-9-1990, provided he is not
otherwise disqualified for promotion by incurring some other disqualification. The appeal is
accordingly allowed but without costs.

Appeal allowed.

</html