Date of the Judgment: May 02, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 620
Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Can a police constable be denied promotion due to a past punishment that was later set aside? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in the case of P. Sakthi vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu. The court considered whether the appellant, a police constable, was wrongly denied consideration for promotion to Sub Inspector of Police due to a punishment that had already been overturned.
Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, delivered the judgment, addressing the denial of promotion consideration to a police constable based on a past punishment that had been set aside.
Case Background
P. Sakthi, the appellant, was a Police Constable in Tamil Nadu, initially appointed on March 1, 2002. In 2019, he became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police under the 20% departmental quota. However, by order dated April 13, 2019, the Superintendent of Police denied him consideration. The reason cited was a punishment imposed on May 9, 2005, which involved the postponement of his next increment for one year without cumulative effect.
The appellant had faced both departmental proceedings and a criminal case for allegedly beating up a colleague at a check post. A dispute arose after duty hours, leading to a brawl where the colleague was injured. Although he was arrested, he was later acquitted in the criminal case. The departmental proceedings initially found him guilty and imposed the punishment, but this was set aside by the Government on November 27, 2009.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 1, 2002 | P. Sakthi was appointed as a Police Constable in Tamil Nadu. |
| May 9, 2005 | Punishment of postponement of next increment for one year without cumulative effect was imposed. |
| November 27, 2009 | The punishment imposed on the appellant was set aside by the Government. |
| 2019 | Appellant was denied consideration for promotion to Sub Inspector of Police. |
| April 13, 2019 | Order issued by the Superintendent of Police denying promotion consideration. |
| May 02, 2025 | Supreme Court allows the appeal, directing consideration for promotion from 2019. |
Legal Framework
The recruitment rules provided for disqualifying an in-service candidate if they did not have a clean record of service, barring minor punishments such as black marks, reprimands, and/or censure.
Arguments
The appellant contended that since the punishment imposed on him had been set aside as early as November 27, 2009, there was no basis to deny him consideration for promotion in 2019.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the appellant could be denied consideration for promotion in 2019 based on a punishment that had already been set aside in 2009.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellant could be denied consideration for promotion in 2019 based on a punishment that had already been set aside in 2009. | The Court held that the appellant could not be denied consideration. The punishment had been set aside, and therefore, it was unjust to deny him the opportunity for promotion. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant be considered for promotion from 2019. The Court also ordered that if found eligible, he should be promoted and receive consequential benefits. The Court emphasized that the denial of consideration was not the appellant’s fault, as it was based on a punishment that had already been set aside.
The court observed:
“…the appellant must be considered for promotion, dehors any disentitlement due to his having become over aged. The consideration will be made and if found eligible, he shall be promoted from 2019 and consequential benefits also shall be paid to him, since it was not his fault that the authority denied his consideration for promotion based on a punishment which had already been set aside.”
The Court further noted:
“It is trite that the employee has no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered, when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified; which right has been impinged, unjustly, in the above case.”
Key Takeaways
- An employee has the right to be considered for promotion unless disqualified.
- Denying consideration for promotion based on a punishment that has been set aside is unjust.
- If an employee is wrongly denied consideration for promotion, they are entitled to consequential benefits upon promotion.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that an employee cannot be denied consideration for promotion based on a punishment that has already been set aside. This reinforces the principle that employees have a right to be considered for promotion unless there is a valid disqualification.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in P. Sakthi vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu ensures that a police constable is rightfully considered for promotion, setting aside the denial based on a previously overturned punishment. This ruling upholds the employee’s right to be considered for promotion and ensures justice by directing the authorities to grant consequential benefits if the constable is found eligible.