The Calcutta High Court has delivered a significant ruling affirming that prolonged pendency of criminal proceedings, without a final determination of guilt, cannot be used to indefinitely withhold promotion from public sector employees whose performance records remain unblemished. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative decisions must not be held hostage to procedural delays beyond the control of the employee.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Rajesh Ranjan Srivastava, a senior executive in Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), sought promotion to the E-8 grade after serving over two decades in the executive cadre. His promotion was denied on the grounds of pending criminal proceedings stemming from a 2001 mining accident at Bagdigih Colliery. Despite being cleared in a departmental enquiry in 2005 and maintaining an outstanding performance record from 2008 to 2023, he was denied promotion while a similarly situated officer, A.K. Sengupta, was promoted in 2017 despite identical circumstances.
Procedural History
- 2001: Mining accident occurred at Bagdigih Colliery; criminal case registered against five officers including the petitioner.
- 2003: Criminal proceedings formally initiated in Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court.
- 2005: Departmental enquiry closed by the enquiry officer on 19th August 2005 due to impasse; no further action taken for 20 years.
- 2017: A.K. Sengupta, similarly accused, was promoted from E-7 to E-8 grade.
- 2025: Petitioner filed writ petition seeking promotion, citing seniority and performance.
- 2026: On 17th January 2026, just days before the final hearing, BCCL constituted a new enquiry committee to revive the dormant disciplinary proceeding.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought immediate promotion to the E-8 grade in accordance with seniority and performance norms under Clause 1.17(h)(iii)(4) of the Cadre Schemes and Promotion Procedures, along with consequential benefits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the pendency of a criminal proceeding for over 20 years, without a final adjudication, justifies the denial of promotion to a public sector employee who has been exonerated in departmental proceedings and maintains an excellent performance record.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Clause 1.17(h)(iii)(4) of the Cadre Schemes, which permits grant of safety clearance even if criminal proceedings exceed 18 months, provided the executive is not found responsible in the internal enquiry or has been exonerated. He cited the precedent of A.K. Sengupta’s promotion as evidence of arbitrariness and violation of equality under Article 14. He emphasized his unblemished performance evaluations and proximity to retirement.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that promotion could not be granted without safety clearance and vigilance clearance, both of which were pending due to the ongoing criminal case. They argued that the revival of the disciplinary proceeding was a legitimate administrative step and that the petitioner’s delay in approaching the court warranted dismissal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under Clause 1.17(h)(iii)(4) and found that the provision explicitly contemplates situations where criminal proceedings are unduly delayed. The Court noted that the departmental enquiry had been closed in 2005 with no further action taken for two decades, effectively amounting to constructive exoneration. The Court held that the mere pendency of a criminal case, without a conviction or even a charge sheet being framed for over 20 years, cannot override statutory norms governing promotion.
"There is no justification in withholding promotion of the petitioner taking note of the fact that the petitioner is going to retire on 31st May, 2026. Moreover, performance of the petitioner was assessed... as Excellent(E)/Outstanding (OS)/Very Good(VG)."
The Court further found the constitution of a new enquiry committee on 17th January 2026, immediately after the matter was set for final hearing, to be a malafide attempt to frustrate the petitioner’s legitimate claim. The Court emphasized that administrative inaction for two decades cannot be reversed at the eleventh hour to defeat a claim that has been pending for years.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that promotion cannot be denied solely on the ground of prolonged criminal pendency when departmental proceedings are closed and performance is exemplary. The Court directed BCCL and CIL to grant promotion within eight weeks and release all consequential benefits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Promotion Rights Are Not Suspended Indefinitely
- Practitioners must argue that statutory timelines for safety clearance override indefinite administrative inaction.
- Where internal enquiries are closed and no charges are framed for over 18 months, promotion must proceed unless guilt is established.
- Delay in disciplinary proceedings by the employer cannot be weaponized to deny service benefits.
Performance Evaluations Trump Procedural Delays
- Excellent or Outstanding performance ratings over a 15-year period create a strong presumption of fitness for promotion.
- Employers cannot rely on dormant criminal cases to justify non-promotion when no adverse findings exist in departmental records.
- Courts will scrutinize timing of revived proceedings - actions taken immediately before a hearing are presumed malafide.
Arbitrariness in Treatment Violates Article 14
- Differential treatment of similarly placed employees - such as Sengupta’s promotion versus Srivastava’s denial - constitutes arbitrary classification.
- Petitioners must be encouraged to cite comparative cases to establish discrimination in administrative decisions.
- Public sector employers must maintain consistent, transparent criteria for promotion, especially when statutory norms exist.
