Nagpur: In a landmark judgment protecting the fundamental rights of Central and semi-govt employees, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Monday held that a pending criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute cannot justify withholding an employee’s promotion in the absence of allegations of service misconduct, corruption or moral turpitude.A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Raj Wakode quashed the decision of Mineral Exploration and Consultancy Ltd (MECL) to keep the departmental promotion committee (DPC) result of its senior manager in a sealed cover. The court directed the company to declare the result and decide his promotion. “A pending matrimonial dispute against the petitioner would not be sufficient to deprive him from getting a promotion,” the judges held.The petitioner joined MECL as a senior manager and was due for promotion to deputy general manager in July 2023. The promotion process was deferred by a year, following which he appeared before DPC on Aug 16, 2024.Two of his colleagues who appeared before the same committee were promoted, but his promotion was withheld after the company’s vigilance division refused clearance due to a criminal case arising from a complaint filed by his wife in Jamshedpur in 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 504 of IPC.She accused him of subjecting her to cruelty, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation. A chargesheet was filed against him on Sept 30, 2022, and the criminal proceedings remained pending.The petitioner through counsel Pritesh Bansod approached HC contending that the case was matrimonial in nature and that there was no other criminal case or departmental proceeding against him.MECL opposed the petition, citing the criminal case and alleging the petitioner had made multiple unauthorised job applications without a prior NOC.Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India versus K V Jankiraman and Union of India versus Anil Kumar Sarkar, the bench reiterated mere pendency of disciplinary or criminal proceedings is not sufficient to withhold promotion. The sealed-cover procedure can be adopted after a charge-memo in disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution has been issued, subject to applicable rules.The court also noted there was no allegation of misconduct against the husband during his service and no allegation of corruption, misappropriation or conduct involving moral turpitude.Allowing the 47-year-old man’s plea, the judges declared the sealed-cover procedure adopted by MECL for the DPC result as “wrong, arbitrary” and liable to be quashed and set aside.
