Summary
Where a bank officer's minor penalty was quashed for likelihood of bias in the enquiry and the writ court granted "all consequential benefits", the Supreme Court held that those benefits included the promotion to Scale-III that had been kept in abeyance and then cancelled only because of the enquiry. Paying back the reduced pay alone was not compliance; the bank was given four weeks to grant the promotion from 28.07.2001 with monetary benefits and 6% interest.
Issues
- Whether the employer complied with a writ court order setting aside a disciplinary penalty and granting "all consequential benefits" by refunding only the pay withheld under the penalty.
- Whether "consequential benefits" included promotion from Scale-II to Scale-III with effect from 28.07.2001, the promotion having been kept in abeyance and then cancelled because of the enquiry, although the cancellation was not separately challenged.
- Whether the contempt court could grant that relief without going beyond the main order.
Held
- The penalty was set aside because a junior officer competing with the appellant for the same promotion conducted the enquiry, a defect for which the appellant was not at fault; the bank did not contest this in the writ appeal, initiated no fresh enquiry and sought no liberty, so the single judge's order attained finality. (¶¶ 21, 22, 24)
- Where an employee's promotion was ordered but kept in abeyance and later cancelled only because of the outcome of a disciplinary enquiry that is subsequently quashed, denying him the promotion from the original date would be unfair; on these facts the promotion is encompassed in the phrase "consequential benefits" granted by the writ court. (¶¶ 25, 26, 30)
- The objection that there was no pleading or prayer against the cancellation of promotion was rejected, since the relief fell within the consequential benefits granted and the ends of justice cannot be sacrificed to technicalities. (¶ 26)
- Govt. of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi was distinguished: there the promotion result was not kept in abeyance and the officer retired before approval, whereas here the appellant later assumed the promoted post in 2012 and the only question was the date from which he was entitled. Granting promotion from 28.07.2001 therefore did not travel beyond the main order. (¶ 27)
- Refunding Rs. 19,446, the pay reduced under the penalty, was not compliance with the writ court's order; the authorities ought to have extended the benefit on their own once the writ appeal was disposed of. The objection to maintainability of the contempt petition was hyper-technical. (¶¶ 28, 29)
- Whether the appellant was wrongly denied promotions above Scale-III in the 2016 to 2018 exercises could not be examined in contempt; liberty was reserved to pursue remedies, which are not to be rejected on limitation or laches. (¶ 31)
- The Court did not proceed in contempt but gave the respondents an opportunity to remedy the default by granting the promotion with monetary benefits and interest. (¶ 32)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; the High Court's order closing the contempt case set aside. The respondents to grant promotion from Scale-II to Scale-III with effect from 28.07.2001 within four weeks, with all monetary benefits and 6% annual interest from the dates they fell due; liberty to pursue claims for higher promotions without objection of limitation or laches; no costs.