Assistants/Superintendents have been specifically mentioned, their promotion was deferred due to pendency of major penalty proceedings against them. The learned senior counsel would submit that in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and the ultimate slapping of the penalty on the petitioners, due promotion as Superintendents/Assistant Managers, as the case may be, has been deferred, which resulted in the juniors of the petitioners getting promoted to the higher post ahead of the petitioners. Therefore, he would contend that it is not a mere penalty of stoppage of increment of a period of one year but also deferment of promotion and such consequence of the disciplinary action is quite severe and harsh, particularly, when the original authority has thought fit not to impose any penalty, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. When the original authority has clearly observed that there was no loss to the Corporation and therefore the petitioners were not liable to be punished with any minor punishment as enumerated under the regulations, without any materials whatsoever, the second respondent has caused suo motu review and imposed the impugned penalty. Learned senior counsel would emphasise the fact that any revision/review is permissible only on the basis of the evidence which was made available in the departmental enquiry and in the instant case, no such evidence was available as no proper enquiry was conducted at all, in the first place. In such a scenario, the impugned penalty, as a consequence of suo motu review cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and therefore, the same has to be set aside with the consequential benefit.
