Petitioner challenged a disciplinary order specifying a three-year delay in promotion and altering his promotion date. Court noted delay but granted liberty for representation while dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 363 OF 2008
Shyamrao Ishwar Kakade Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India and Ors.
Respondents
Mr. A. I. Bhatkar, for the Petitioner.
Dr. Poornima Advani i/b The Law Point for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, AND
A. P. BHANGALE, JJ.
DATE : May 2, 2008.
PC :-
There were some charges of misconduct against
| . the |
petiti | oner |
and af |
ter a |
n inquiry, he |
was |
imposed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| with | the | pena |
lty wit |
h the |
reduction to |
a |
lower | stage |
| in | the | time | scale, |
by | the order dat |
ed Feb |
ruary | 17, |
| 1995. | Howe | ver, | the | disciplinary aut |
hority | did | not | |
| spell | out | the | time |
period | after which |
he | could | be |
| re-conside | red | for | the p |
romotion. | He |
filed | the | appeal |
| on | 16th | March | 1995. | The | appeal was |
rejected | by | the |
| appellate | a | uthority, | thou | gh | it was |
m |
odified | to |
| reduction | to a |
lower |
stage | in the tim |
e-scale | by | one | |
| stage. | The | order | of | appellate authorit |
y wa |
s | passed | |
| on | August | 28, |
1995. | How | ever, on Augus |
t 9, |
1995 | the |
disciplinary authority had issued amended order by adding the words "for a period three years" at the end of the original order of punishment, wherein it is further directed that "Shri S. I. Kakade, Jr. Office Assistant, Office of the Regional Executive Director, Bombay will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry
of this period, the reduction will not have the
effect of postponing his future increments of pay."
| 2. | Obviously, this order should also be read as | |
|---|---|---|
| order | of the appellate authority. When the |
appeal |
| was fi |
led by him, it was necessary to be spelt ou |
t by |
| the | petitioner before he could be promoted. |
The |
| petitioner | was promoted as senior assistant |
w.e.f. |
| 1-7-1996 | by the order dated 22-12-2005. However |
the |
| date | of his prmotion has been subsequently changed |
to |
| the | date 1st March 1998. The petitioner was |
serving |
| the | sentence, that was the period during which |
he |
| could | not be promoted in view of the pun |
ishment. |
| Therefore, | we do not find any merits as it |
appears |
| that | change of date of promotion appears to |
be |
| justified. | If the petitioner was aggrieved by |
the |
| order | which laid time period for which he could |
not |
| be | promoted, as specified by the authority, he |
could |
| have | challenged the said order of the |
appellate |
| authority | earlier. Thirteen years have passed |
from |
| the date 9- |
8-1995 | and | the petitioner |
had no |
t chos |
en a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| recourse to |
challenge | th | is order ev |
en till |
today. | In |
| the absence |
of | any | reason for |
not cha |
llenging | the |
| said order |
9- | 8-1995 | till to |
this | date, | the |
| petitioner’s | case | may | not be |
justified. | However, | |
| considering | the | facts | and circu |
mstances of |
the | case, |
| we give |
libert | y | to the |
petitioner | to | make |
| representation | to | the | respondents, | who may |
consider | |
| the same |
in | the | light of the |
subsequent | conduct | of |
| the petitioner, |
i.e. | the conduct |
after he |
served | the |
punishment. With these observation, petition is
dismissed.
Sd/[ BILAL NAZKI, J. ]
Sd/[ A. P.BHANGALE, J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in challenging the order defining the period of reduction in promotion warrants dismissal of the writ petition.
Shyamrao Ishwar Kakade
Union of India
Bilal Nazki
A. P. Bhangale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
