Background: I am currently working with ONGC, a Central Public Sector Enterprise (CPSE). A disciplinary penalty was imposed on me via a D&A order dated 23.10.2023 under the then-applicable CDA Rules (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules). The penalty was as follows:
1. A major penalty.
2. Reduction of pay by one stage for a limited period -from 01.10.2023 to 30.09.2024.
3. The order explicitly stated that it would not affect future increments.
Subsequently, my increment was restored with effect from 01.10.2024 after the completion of the punishment. The case was closed, and there is now no pending disciplinary case or penalty against me.
My promotion was due on 01.01.2025. As per the R&P Rules, I had fulfilled all eligibility criteria (experience, seniority, and no pending disciplinary proceedings) for promotion to the E3 level as of 01.01.2025. However, I was not promoted from E2 to E3.
I sought clarification from the Corporate Promotion Cell, ONGC, regarding the denial of my promotion. In their reply, they informed me that:
1. I was eligible for promotion from E2 to E3 level with effect from 01.01.2025.
2. As per the D&A clearance obtained before the DPC meeting, there was no pending case against me on that date. It was further stated that a major penalty of reduction to one stage lower in the time scale of pay was imposed on me for the period from 01.10.2023 to 30.09.2024, via order dated 23.10.2023.
3. As per Point No.15 of the modified CDA Rules, vigilance clearance is normally not granted for five years after the currency of a major penalty. Since vigilance clearance is required for promotion, my name was not considered for promotion to the E3 level w.e.f. 01.01.2025.
Later, through an RTI reply, I came to know that the Ministry of Finance issued a DPE OM No. F.15(2)/2001-DPE(GM) dated 29.07.2024, notifying the consolidated and revised Vigilance Policy for CPSEs.
Key highlights of the said OM include: Para 4.2 – In case of imposition of a major penalty, vigilance clearance will not normally be granted for a period of five years after the currency of the punishment. During this period, the performance of the officer should be closely monitored.
ONGC adopted the above OM dated 29.07.2024 and incorporated it into its CDA Rules, thus modifying the applicable rules.
It is important to note that: When the penalty was imposed on me on 23.10.2023, there was no such provision in ONGC’s CDA Rules.
The above OM was implemented just two months prior to the completion of my penalty on 30.09.2024.
Rule Change & Promotion Denial:
On 29.07.2024, Clause 13 of the R&P Rules was also amended and introduced into the CDA Rules of ONGC.
Based on this amended clause, my promotion was denied, as communicated by ONGC via letter dated 08.05.2025.
My Legal Stand:
The penalty was imposed before the amended clause came into force and was based on the rules applicable at that time.
I had a legitimate expectation under the unamended rules that my promotion would not be barred after the completion of the penalty.
Applying the amended Clause 13 of the modified R&P Rules and Point No.15 of the modified CDA Rules to my case amounts to retrospective application, which is legally flawed.
The D&A order did not impose any bar on promotion, but only a temporary reduction in pay.
Reliefs I Seek:
That the promotion denial order dated 08.05.2025 be set aside.
That the amended Clause 13 of the R&P Rules and Point No.15 of the modified CDA Rules not be applied retrospectively to disciplinary cases already decided under the earlier rules.
That I be granted promotion to E3 with effect from 01.01.2025, as per the eligibility norms existing prior to the amendment.
Request for Expert Opinion:
I kindly seek your views on the following:
1. Does this constitute retrospective application of a disadvantageous rule?
2. Is my case legally sustainable under service law principles?
3. Would a writ petition before the High Court or a departmental appeal be the more appropriate remedy in this case? Thank you in advance for your valuable insights.
