Petitioner challenged rejection of promotion claim citing junior's elevation. Court held that doubtful integrity in ACR and stoppage of increments justified non-promotion and dismissed petition.
No relief; petition dismissed with no direction to promote the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 3951 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : 25.08.2009
Ranbir Singh
.... PETITIONER
Versus
Haryana State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Panchkula and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajbir Singh Sihag, Advocate, for the respondents.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner, who is working as Peon in the Office of District Primary Cooperative and Rural Development Bank Limited, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, has filed the instant petition for quashing the action of the respondents in not promoting him; and for issuing a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Clerk with effect from 30.4.2005, the date his junior was promoted by ignoring his claim.
It is the admitted position that in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, his integrity was recorded
CWP No. 3951 of 2008
-2-
to be doubtful and overall work was assessed as `average'. Further, vide order dated 9.10.2002, in a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of stoppage of his two annual increments with cumulative effect. It is the stand of the respondents that due to these two factors, claim of the petitioner for promotion was considered and rejected, when one Suresh Kumar, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted on 30.4.2005.
After hearing counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, his integrity was recorded doubtful and on the basis of the said ACR, his claim for promotion could not have been rejected in April, 2005, when his junior was promoted. Learned counsel further argued that the nature of allegations in the departmental enquiry, in which punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner, was not much serious. Therefore, the petitioner should not have been ignored by taking into consideration the said punishment.
The aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. I am of the considered view that in view of the fact that in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, his integrity was recorded to be doubtful and in view of the punishment imposed vide order dated 9.10.2002, the petitioner was rightly ignored for promotion to the post of Clerk in April, 2005. No ground to interfere in the
CWP No. 3951 of 2008
-3-
matter is made out.
Dismissed.
August 25, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who had integrity recorded as doubtful in ACR and whose increments were stopped, was rightly denied promotion compared to a junior.
Whether the departmental punishment of stoppage of two annual increments was sufficient grounds to ignore the petitioner's claim for promotion.
Ranbir Singh
Haryana State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
