VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 397
779
(B) Penalty — promotion during its currency
Non-consideration of promotion during currency of
penalty, does not constitute double jeopardy.
State of Tamil Nadu vs. K.S. Murugesan,
1995(3) SLJ SC 237
The Supreme Court referred to the case of Union of
India vs. K.V. Janakiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 and held that it is
clear that when promotion is under consideration, the previous record
forms basis and when the promotion is on merit and ability, the
currency of punishment based on previous record stands an
impediment. Unless the period of punishment gets expired by afflux
of time, the claim for consideration during the said period cannot be
taken up. Otherwise, it would amount to retrospective promotion
which is impressible under the Rules and it would be a premium on
misconduct. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court held
that the doctrine of double jeopardy has no application and nonconsideration
is neither violative of Art. 20(2) nor Art.14 read with
Art.16 of the Constitution.
(397)
Judicial Service — disciplinary control
Article 235 of the Constitution says control over the
district courts and the courts subordinate thereto
including posting and promotion of, and the grant
of leave to, persons belonging to the Judicial service
of a State and holding any post inferior to the post
of District Judge shall vest in the High Court and
the control to be exercised also relates to matters
of discipline so far as judges of the subordinate
courts are concerned which is an absolute necessity
for the maintenance of judicial independence.
Pranlal Manilal Parikh vs. State of Gujarat,
1995 (4) SLR SC 694