‘Promotion not inherent right’: Kerala High Court rejects IRCTC manager’s 14-Year Battle over ‘minor’ misconduct

Legally denied promotion

• According to the promotion policies produced, no promotion shall be granted if an employee is undergoing punishment.
• Regardless of the interpretation sought to be placed by the petitioner, it remains a formal punishment imposed upon him for a specific duration, during which his promotion was legally denied.
• Such a denial is merely a natural consequence of the disciplinary process.
• Denial of promotion on the grounds of an imposed penalty during the currency of the penalty does not amount to double jeopardy or double punishment.
• Immediately upon the completion of the period of punishment, promotion was affected in accordance with the promotion policy of 2012. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that promotion was denied based on the policy cannot be accepted.

Outstanding manager

• The counsel for the petitioners contended that, as per the promotion policy, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager in the Tourism department in 2012.
• The petitioner contends that he holds a Master’s Degree in Business Management (Administration) and a Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology, and being an outstanding and consistent performer, he claims that he is entitled to promotion as Deputy General Manager even before the completion of three years in the feeder category post.
• According to the seniority list for Manager, only two qualified candidates were available for the existing vacancies, Sanjeeviah and himself.
• The counsel asserted that, in similar circumstances, other Managers in the Internet Ticketing Department who joined the service along with him were promoted in accordance with the policy.
• The counsel alleged that the respondent issued a charge memo with the specific intent to deny him promotion, and it contained three frivolous charges of a minor nature, involving neither financial loss to the IRCTC nor moral turpitude.
• Due to the alleged pendency of disciplinary action, the petitioner was not considered even for an ad hoc promotion.
• It was argued that the “sealed cover” procedure was not adopted, which the petitioner claims constitutes discriminatory treatment by the respondent.
• It was contended that the interpretation of the punishment was highly arbitrary and that the penalty was shockingly disproportionate to the charges.
• The petitioner denies all allegations, maintaining that he committed no misconduct or dereliction of duty.
• It is argued that the denial of promotion is itself a penalty under the IRCTC (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003.

promotion not employee’s right

• The counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition, as they rely primarily on the promotion policy, upon which the petitioner’s own claim is based.
• It was argued that clause 14(2)(c) of the policy stipulates that promotion cannot be affected if an employee is undergoing punishment.
• The policy clarifies that ad hoc promotion is at the sole discretion of the appropriate authority, who may revoke it at any time without assigning any reason, and promotion shall not confer any permanent right or claim upon the employee.
• It was argued that promotion is a “positive act of selection” rather than an automatic entitlement, and the DPC must assess the suitability of the officer based on their performance record upon the completion of three years of regular service.

Denied Promotion

• The petitioner was originally appointed as an assistant manager under the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC).
• On March 9, 2009, he was promoted to the position of manager (Tourism).
• The post of manager was the feeder category for promotion to deputy general manager, which is a post in the middle management level (Group E4), from the junior management level (Group E2/E3).
• Promotions were to be affected on the basis of performance and confidential reports upon completion of three years of regular service.
• However, there is an exemption for outstanding candidates possessing the requisite qualifications and consistently high standards of performance.
• On March 23, 2012, IRCTC issued a communication seeking APARs for promotion consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
• On April 20, 2012, a charge memo against the petitioner was issued.
• On May 18, 2012, the petitioner submitted a formal explanation refusing the allegations.
• On March 11, 2013, another person named N Sanjeeviah was promoted to the post of DGM.
• On October 18, 2013, the petitioner sought an ad hoc promotion, which was denied due to ongoing disciplinary proceedings.
• On July 21, 2014, disciplinary action was concluded, and a penalty of a reduction in pay by two stages for a period of one year was imposed.
• On July 21, 2015, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of DGM after the punishment expired and he was eligible.