Judge’s seniority can't be affected by complaints that did not lead to disciplinary action: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that judicial officers cannot be denied seniority merely because their promotion was deferred on the basis of a complaint that never culminated in disciplinary action [Chhaya Singh v. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors.]. .Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed that once such a complaint does not culminate in a departmental inquiry, disciplinary proceedings or punishment, the temporary deferment loses its legal significance and cannot continue to prejudice the officer’s service career.“Once the complaint did not culminate in any disciplinary proceedings, enquiry, punishment or adverse finding, the deferment ceased to have any legal significance.” the court noted. It added that while promotion is not a vested right, the right to be fairly considered for promotion is protected under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which guarantee right to equality..The observations came while allowing a petition filed by a Chief Judicial Magistrate (petitioner) who challenged the denial of her original seniority after her promotion from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) was deferred in 2014..The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in 2008 and became eligible for promotion after completing the required qualifying service. However, when promotions were considered in 2014 the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) deferred her case after a complaint was made by the then Superintendent of Police of Durg in connection with judicial orders she had passed while dealing with a criminal complaint.The High Court noted that the petitioner submitted an explanation to the complaint, but no departmental inquiry was ever initiated, no disciplinary proceedings were instituted and no adverse order was passed against her.Although she was eventually promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) in August 2016, she was denied restoration of her original seniority. She argued that this adversely affected her future promotions, including her chances of being promoted as a District Judge..The Court accepted her contention. It noted that the DPC had never declared the petitioner unfit for promotion. It observed that she was promoted in 2016 on the basis of substantially the same service record and Annual Confidential Reports that were available when her case was first considered in 2014.The Court said the only reason for deferring her promotion was the pending complaint which ultimately did not result in any disciplinary action. In such circumstances, it held, the temporary deferment could not be allowed to permanently prejudice her service career.The Court also found fault with the rejection of the petitioner's representation seeking restoration of seniority. The High Court observed that the communication merely stated that her request had been rejected without assigning any reasons. It reiterated that reasons are the “heartbeat” of administrative decisions and are essential to ensure fairness and transparency..Accordingly, the Court directed the High Court administration and the State government to reconsider the petitioner's claim for promotion as Civil Judge (Senior Division) with effect from August 14, 2014 - the date on which other officers of her batch were promoted - and examine her claim for restoration of seniority and all consequential service benefits.It directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months..[Read Order]