censure is not a bar for promotion and though the sealed cover procedure was adopted, the sealed cover should have been opened and the recommendation of DPC should have been given effect.
penalty of censure would not affect the promotion of the respondent and the department was not right in contending
The Hon'ble Apex Court had occasion to consider the question of impact of minor penalty of censure on promotion in its judgment in Union of India and others v. A.N.Mohanan [2007 AIR SCW 2773]. The controversy in the said case was that the departmental enquiry was started against the respondents therein on 3.8.1999. The DPC made the selection on 1.11.1999. Since the enquiry was pending against the respondents, sealed cover procedure was adopted. On 13.9.2001 the penalty of censure was awarded. Promotion was granted to the respondents on 26.11.2001. However, he claimed that the promotion should have been given to him with effect from 1.11.1999. He moved this tribunal for such a direction. The Tribunal in its order held that the penalty of censure was not a bar for promotion and though the sealed cover procedure was adopted, the sealed cover should have been opened and the recommendation of DPC should have been given effect to, by giving promotional benefit to the respondent with effect from 1.11.1999. The Writ Petition filed before the High Court was also dismissed. The contention of the appellant, i.e. the Government of India was that the effect of Rule 3.1 of the O.M relating to promotion of Government servants dated 14.9.1992 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions clearly stipulates that where penalty has been imposed, findings of the sealed cover/covers are not to be acted upon and the cause of promotion can be considered by the next DPC in the normal course. The Apex Court after considering the aforesaid submission of the Union of India and relying on its earlier judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman [AIR 1991 SC 2010 allowed the appeal holding that award of censure is a blameworthy factor and having regard to the penalty imposed upon the respondents therein, his claim for promotion with effect from 1.11.1999 was unacceptable. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is as under: "8. Few Rules as contained in the Office Memorandum need to be noted. Rules 3 and 3.1 read as follows: "Rule 3 : On the conclusion of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution which results in dropping .of allegations against the Govt. servant, the sealed cover or covers shall be opened. In case the government servant is completely exonerated, the due date of his promotion will be determined with reference to the position assigned to him in the findings kept in he sea1ed cover/covers and with reference to the date of promotion of his next junior on the basis of such position. The Government servant may be promoted, if necessary, by reverting the Junior, most officiating person. He may be promoted notionally with reference to the date of promotion of junior. However, whether the officer convened will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, and if so to what extent, will be decided by the appointing authority by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution. Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing so. It is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such denials of arrears of salary or part of it may become necessary. However, there may be cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc., these are only some of the circumstances where such denial can be justified. Rule 3.1: If any penalty is imposed on the Government servant as a result of the disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the Criminal prosecution against him, the finding of the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon. His case for promotion may be considered by the next DPC in the normal course and having regard to the penalty imposed on him."
As in the case of promotion of a Government servant, who has been awarded the penalty of censure, the penalty of recovery from his pay of the loss caused by him to Government or of withholding his increment(s) does not stand in the way of his consideration for promotion though in the latter case promotion is not given effect to during the currency of the penalty. While, therefore, the fact of the imposition of such a penalty does not by itself debar the Government servant concerned from being considered for promotion, it is also taken into account by the Departmental Promotion Committee, or the competent authority, as the case may be, in the overall assessment of his service record for judging his suitability or otherwise for promotion or his fitness for admission to a departmental/promotional examination (where fitness of the candidates is a condition precedent to such admission).
There are various judgments by supreme couirt, tribunals to prove that the censure punishment cannot bar the department to withhold promotion.
You can resort to legal action if you do not get the relief.
