Introduction:

In the case of Dibyajyoti Ghosh v. Coal India Ltd. & Ors. (MAT 1751 of 2024), the Calcutta High Court addressed the intricate issue of employee promotion amidst pending disciplinary proceedings. The appellant, Mr. Dibyajyoti Ghosh, challenged the decision of Coal India Limited (CIL) to grant him promotion prospectively from August 2014, rather than retrospectively from December 2013, following the moderation of his disciplinary penalty to a censure.

Arguments:

Appellant’s Contentions:

Mr. Ghosh contended that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him culminated in a minor penalty of censure, which, according to the Conduct, Discipline, and Appeal Rules of CIL, should not impede his promotion. He argued that since the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) had recommended his promotion before the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and given the subsequent moderation of the penalty, he was entitled to promotion with effect from December 24, 2013. He further asserted that denying him retrospective promotion amounted to imposing a double penalty, violating principles of natural justice.

Respondents’ Contentions:

CIL, represented by Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee and Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty, maintained that as per their internal circulars and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (AIR 1991 SC 2010), an employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending cannot be promoted until the conclusion of such proceedings. They emphasised that the promotion granted to Mr. Ghosh from August 2014 was in line with the applicable rules and did not constitute a double penalty.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, upheld the decision of CIL to grant Mr. Ghosh promotion prospectively from August 2014. The Court observed that the recommendation of the DPC could not be acted upon during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. It further noted that the moderation of the penalty to censure did not entitle the appellant to retrospective promotion, as the disciplinary proceedings were not concluded at the time of the DPC’s recommendation. The Court emphasised that granting retrospective promotion in such circumstances would contravene established legal principles and internal policies of CIL.