Supreme Court Rules on Police Promotion Dispute: Key Judgment Explained

The Supreme Court of India recently decided a significant case regarding the promotion of police officers in Kerala. The case revolved around the promotion of D. Sali to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP), which was initially denied due to a disciplinary penalty imposed on him in 1997. The appellant, Mohammed Faizal K.A., challenged the High Court’s decision that allowed D. Sali’s inclusion in the select list for promotion to DySP for the year 2001.

The key question before the Court was whether the disciplinary punishment imposed in 1997, which extended into 1998 and 1999, could be considered in evaluating Sali’s eligibility for promotion in 2001. The judgment has broad implications for government employees challenging promotion denials based on past disciplinary actions.

Background of the Case

The case arose from two writ appeals filed by Mohammed Faizal K.A. against the Kerala High Court’s decision to quash a government order denying D. Sali’s promotion. The sequence of events was as follows:

D. Sali was initially denied inclusion in the select list for DySP promotion for 2001 because of a penalty imposed on him in 1997.
He challenged this decision in the Kerala High Court, which ruled in his favor, directing the government to reassess his case without considering the 1997 punishment.
The government conducted a review and once again denied him inclusion, citing the same disciplinary penalty.
He approached the High Court again, which quashed the second rejection and ordered his inclusion in the 2001 select list.
Based on the High Court’s ruling, he was granted notional promotion from March 19, 2001.
Mohammed Faizal K.A., who was promoted to DySP in 2002, challenged this decision, arguing that the retrospective promotion of D. Sali made him (Faizal) junior to Sali.

Arguments of the Appellant

Mohammed Faizal K.A. argued:

He was promoted in 2002 based on merit and seniority.
D. Sali’s retrospective promotion to 2001 unfairly disrupted the seniority structure, making him junior to Sali.
The 1997 punishment was validly considered in assessing Sali’s suitability for promotion in 2001 since it affected his service record beyond 1997.
The High Court erred in quashing the government order denying Sali’s promotion.

Arguments of the Respondent

D. Sali contended:

For considering the 2001 select list, only his records for 1998, 1999, and 2000 should have been examined, and the 1997 penalty should not have been considered.
The High Court correctly ruled that the government had unlawfully rejected his promotion.
Since he had been subsequently promoted, revising the decision would unfairly disrupt his service benefits.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, Mohammed Faizal K.A., making the following key observations:

“The punishment awarded in 1997 was to withhold increments for two years with cumulative effect. That obviously was to operate beyond 1997 and affect the check period for the 2001 promotion. The argument that it should not have been considered is untenable.”

The Court held that disciplinary penalties affecting an employee’s record beyond the initial punishment period could be considered for promotions.

“An employee has no right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. Promotion depends upon several factors, including an unblemished record. If an employee has been penalized, denial of promotion due to the adverse record is not an additional punishment but a necessary consequence of misconduct.”

Conclusion and Impact

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and reinstated the government’s original order denying Sali’s promotion. It directed:

That D. Sali’s notional promotion from 2001 be revoked.
That his promotion date be revised to January 14, 2005.
That the seniority of Mohammed Faizal K.A. be restored.
That future promotions of both officers be adjusted accordingly.

The ruling clarifies the role of past disciplinary actions in promotion decisions and reinforces the principle that promotions should be based on a fair and consistent application of service rules.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mohammed Faizal K.A. vs D. Sali and Others Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-10-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category