Vigilance FIR Bars Promotion: Kerala High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Granting Retrospective Promotion to Officer Facing Corruption Case

“Once FIR is registered after a preliminary enquiry and Government approval, officer becomes ineligible for inclusion in select list”: Kerala High Court reiterates settled service law

In a critical reaffirmation of the principles governing promotion and probation in government service, the Kerala High Court on January 19, 2026, exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) that had granted retrospective promotion and probation declaration to a Commercial Tax Officer despite the pendency of a vigilance case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

In OP (KAT) No. 152 of 2023, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. allowed the petition filed by the State of Kerala and others, holding that the Tribunal’s order granting retrospective promotion to Pushparani L.—the respondent—was legally unsustainable and contrary to binding precedents and statutory service rules, specifically Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR).

Promotion Cannot Be Claimed When FIR is Registered After Preliminary Enquiry in Vigilance Case

The core question before the Court was whether a government servant, against whom a vigilance FIR was registered after a preliminary enquiry and with the approval of the Government, could be included in a select list for promotion, and whether she could claim retrospective promotion and probation.

Referring to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) Note (i) of the KS & SSR, the Bench ruled: “An officer against whom an FIR is registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, after prima facie satisfying about the charges in the preliminary enquiry, should not be included in the select list.” [Para 19]

The Court rejected the Tribunal’s finding that the FIR dated 17.08.2011 was of no relevance and that only the filing of the final report (31.12.2015) or grant of sanction (18.09.2015) would affect promotion. The Bench clarified that under the PC Act, sanction for prosecution and filing of the charge sheet are not determinative milestones for eligibility for promotion. It is the registration of FIR post preliminary enquiry, upon Government approval, that renders an officer ineligible.

Tribunal Erred in Ignoring the Bar in Service Rules: No Promotion When Vigilance FIR is Pending

The Tribunal’s decision, which allowed retrospective promotion to the respondent from the date her junior was promoted, and further directed declaration of probation, was found to be in direct conflict with the law laid down in State of Kerala v. Babu Prasad [2020 (4) KLT SN 31] and Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109].

In Babu Prasad, the Kerala High Court had drawn a clear distinction between ordinary criminal cases and vigilance cases, observing: “An officer against whom FIR is registered after conducting preliminary enquiry and obtaining approval from the Government is not eligible to be included in the select list. The DPC must adopt the sealed cover procedure in the case of such officers.” [Para 18, quoting Babu Prasad]

Reiterating this principle, the Bench observed: “There is no illegality in excluding the 1st respondent in the select list for promotion by the DPC during its meetings held in the year 2011, 2012 and 2013.” [Para 19]

Sealed Cover Procedure Must Be Adopted When Vigilance Case is Pending

The Court held that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), in the face of a pending vigilance case, ought to have adopted the sealed cover procedure—a settled rule of service law as laid down in K.V. Jankiraman.

“From the principles laid down in K.V. Jankiraman... and the principles laid down in Babu Prasad, it can only be said that the DPC ought to have adopted a sealed cover procedure in the case of the 1st respondent.” [Para 22]

The fact that the DPC, in its meeting held on 03.06.2014, included the respondent in the select list, despite the vigilance case being pending, was found to be contrary to law. However, the Court declined to interfere with that inclusion or subsequent promotion since those actions were not under challenge in the present petition.

Probation Cannot Be Declared During Pendency of Vigilance Case

On the issue of probation, the Court held that since the respondent’s promotion itself was clouded by legal ineligibility, her request for declaration of probation could not be granted, especially during the pendency of a vigilance prosecution under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act and allied IPC provisions.

“The petitioners cannot be directed to declare satisfactory completion of the probation by the 1st respondent, before the finalisation of the vigilance case.” [Para 23]

High Court’s Supervisory Role under Article 227 Justified

While acknowledging the limited nature of the jurisdiction under Article 227, the Court justified its interference, stating that the Tribunal’s decision was:

“In direct conflict with settled principles of law and statutory rules, and therefore liable to be set aside.” [Para 23]

The Court cited precedents including Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] and K.V.S. Ram v. BMTC [(2015) 12 SCC 39], and emphasized that supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised only when there is a gross miscarriage of justice or patent legal error—circumstances which were clearly present in the case at hand.

Tribunal’s Order Quashed, Original Application Dismissed

Allowing the Original Petition, the High Court held that the Tribunal’s directions for retrospective promotion and probation were unsustainable, and accordingly:

“The original petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1919 of 2019, and the original application stands dismissed.” [Para 23]

Date of Decision: 19 January 2026