Even If There Are Discrepancies In Exam, Employee Should Be Provided Show Cause Notice Before Cancelling Promotion: CAT, Allahabad
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad bench of Justice Om Prakash(Judicial Member) and Mohan Pyare (Administrative Member) held that even if, there is a presumption that there were discrepancies in the conduct of examination, proper opportunities should have been provided to the employee by issuing show cause notice and inviting their submission before canceling...
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad bench of Justice Om Prakash(Judicial Member) and Mohan Pyare (Administrative Member) held that even if, there is a presumption that there were discrepancies in the conduct of examination, proper opportunities should have been provided to the employee by issuing show cause notice and inviting their submission before canceling their promotion.
Brief Facts:
The matter pertained to the appointment and subsequent promotion of the Applicant, who was initially appointed as Lascar and later promoted to the post of Carpenter in Group 'C'. The Applicant's appointment as Lascar was followed by a promotion process in which he undertook an examination and trade testing, leading to his selection and promotion. However, the HQ Maintenance Command Indian Air Force issued a directive to cancel the promotion, stating procedural irregularities and deficiencies in the promotion process. This cancellation was communicated to the Applicant without prior notice or opportunity to defend his case, which the Applicant contended is a violation of his constitutional rights and principles of natural justice. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad (“Tribunal”) and filed an original application.
According to the Applicant, the cancellation of his promotion was arbitrary and illegal, as it was done without following due process and without valid reasons. The Applicant argued that the promotion process was conducted in accordance with the Recruitment Rules (amended) 2003, and any alleged discrepancies were minor and did not warrant cancellation. Additionally, he argued that the cancellation of his promotion had adverse consequences on his grade pay and allowances, which were not rectified upon the cancellation.
On the other hand, the Air Force argued that the promotion process was flawed, as the Board of Officers responsible for conducting the examination and trade test did not follow the rules and guidelines outlined in AFO 51/78. It contended that the reconstitution of the Board of Officers and the subsequent promotion were therefore invalid and rightfully canceled by the competent authority. Furthermore, it argued that since the Applicant did not receive any financial benefits upon his promotion, the cancellation did not result in any financial loss to him.
Observations by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal referred to regulations outlined in AFO 51/78 and S.R.O. No.50 concerning the Trade Test Rules and promotion criteria for Group 'D' employees within the Indian Air Force. Under Para 4 of AFO 51/78, Trade Test Rules were clearly delineated into three parts, each specifying the criteria and syllabus for different tests related to civilian technicians. Additionally, the allocation of marks was clearly stipulated in Para 11, with 200 marks for practical and 100 marks for oral tests.
Furthermore, it referred to rules pertaining to promotion outlined in S.R.O. No.50, where Rule 12 delineated the criteria for the promotion of Group 'D' employees. It specified that employees with at least five years of service could be promoted if they had either acquired an Industrial Training Institute Certificate or passed the requisite trade test and, desirably, the Xth standard.
The Tribunal scrutinized the circumstances surrounding the Applicant's promotion, noting that even if there were discrepancies in the examination process, the Air Force, who conducted the examination and promoted the Applicant, should bear greater responsibility. There was no evidence of the Applicant employing unconstitutional or illegal means to secure promotion.
Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted the absence of any substantiated authority supporting the Air Force's contentions regarding the conduct of the DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) or the allocation of marks for the trade test.
Therefore, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside. Air Force was instructed to reinstate the Applicant to his previous position and provide all associated service benefits within four months from the receipt of the order.
Case Title: Raghvendra Singh Yadav vs Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: Original Application No.651 of 2014
Advocate for the Applicant: Shri M.K. Upadhyay
Advocate for the Respondent: Shri Jitendra Nayak