The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on service matters, has directed the State of Jharkhand to grant retrospective promotion to a retired administrative service officer, Jyotshna Singh, from the date her immediate junior was promoted. The Court set aside a High Court order that had refused to entertain her contempt petition and mandated the payment of all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and refixation of pension. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Jyotshna Singh, was an officer in the Jharkhand State Administrative Service. While posted as a Block Development Officer (BDO), she had reported improper entries in the cash book and initiated proceedings against the responsible official. Subsequently, an audit by the Accountant General’s office raised an objection regarding a potential misappropriation of Rs. 5,60,000.
However, an inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, found “no reason to find embezzlement and the money expended was within the estimated cost.” This finding was accepted by the State Audit Team on July 17, 2009.
Despite the matter being settled, the State initiated departmental proceedings against Ms. Singh on May 25, 2017, nearly ten years after the audit objection was first raised. The proceedings concluded with a punishment of withholding three increments, imposed on October 15, 2019.
High Court Quashes Proceedings
Ms. Singh challenged the punishment before the Jharkhand High Court. The High Court’s Division Bench quashed the entire departmental proceedings. The court observed that the State had led no evidence to prove the charge and that the enquiry officer had improperly relied on unproven documents. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others, the High Court found the proceedings to be in violation of established principles.
Furthermore, relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Another, the High Court faulted the State for initiating proceedings after a lapse of about 10 years. Consequently, the High Court set aside the penalty and issued a “mandamus categorically directing consideration of consequential benefits of writ petitioner including consideration of her case for promotion with retrospective effect.”
State’s Non-Compliance and Contempt Petition
In purported compliance with the High Court’s order, the State of Jharkhand promoted Ms. Singh to the post of Joint Secretary, but only with effect from November 30, 2022. Aggrieved, Ms. Singh filed a contempt petition, arguing that the promotion should relate back to March 13, 2020, the date her immediate junior, Mrs. Uma Mahato, was promoted. The High Court’s Division Bench dismissed the contempt petition, finding her submission to be “clearly unfair.” This dismissal led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant contended that since the entire disciplinary proceedings were set aside, she should be placed in the same position she would have been in had the proceedings never occurred, meaning she should have been promoted alongside her junior.
The State of Jharkhand argued that Ms. Singh was ineligible for promotion when the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on March 13, 2020, as she was under the “rigor of punishment.” The State further submitted that the rules required a minimum of five years’ service for promotion to Joint Secretary, and relaxation of this rule was not applicable to an officer who had been punished.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Final Decision
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had “egregiously erred in rejecting the contempt petition.” The bench observed that the punishment, which was the sole basis for denying Ms. Singh’s promotion, had been completely set aside along with the departmental proceedings, which were found to be a “sham proceeding” and vitiated by “long delay in initiation.”
The Court noted that Mrs. Uma Mahato, the appellant’s junior, had been granted relaxation in the minimum experience requirement for her promotion. Since the basis for denying Ms. Singh’s promotion was the now-quashed punishment, she was entitled to the same consideration.
The Supreme Court held: “The appellant should be considered for promotion from the date on which her immediate junior, Mrs. Uma Mahato was considered in the DPC.”
The Court issued the following directions:
- The State shall promote the appellant to the post of Joint Secretary from March 13, 2020, the date her immediate junior was promoted.
- The appellant is entitled to all consequential benefits, including full arrears of pay and allowances for the post of Joint Secretary from that date.
- As the appellant has retired, her pension shall be refixed based on the last pay drawn after the retrospective promotion, and all arrears must be paid.
- The entire exercise must be completed within four months.
The Court further stipulated that if the State fails to pay the amounts within the stipulated time, the appellant will be entitled to 7% interest on the arrears. The judgment added that if the delay is caused by any specific officer(s), the “State shall be free to recover the additional liability of interest from such officers/employees.”
The appeal was allowed with the aforesaid directions.
