Petitioner challenged punishment and denial of promotion. Court quashed punishment order for procedural violation and directed reconsideration for promotion.
Impugned orders quashed; petitioner reconsidered for promotion to Superintendent Gr-II effective date of juniors' promotion within four months.
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.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.16518 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.09.2011
Jagir Singh
VS.
State of Punjab & Ors.
. . . . Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab
Mr. Dipak Sibal, Advocate for respondents No.4&5
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). The petitioner was a Senior Assistant in the office of District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Ludhiana, when he was charge-sheeted on the allegations like disobedience of the orders passed by senior officers or that he reached late in the office on one or two occasions. A regular enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer vide his report dated 30.10.2002 (Annexure P12) exonerated the petitioner of all the charges holding as follows:-
“So, the documents reveal that the employee never tried to rigmarole the matter of having over the charge, neither disobeyed the orders of the officers. It does not prove at all as per records. Even then, inquiry report
CWP No.16518 of 2008.doc
is submitted before the Hon’ble Director Ayurveda Punjab for further necessary action.”
(2). The disciplinary authority without confronting the petitioner with any ‘Note of Disagreement’, passed an order dated 11th February/5th March, 2003 (Annexure P13), contrary to the enquiry report, observing that “the charges of not giving of charge on one pretext or other and disobedience of the orders of the officers are proved…… ”. However, taking a lenient view, “ strict warning ” was issued to the petitioner to remain careful in future. The aforestated order (Annexure P13) was further modified on 28.03.2005 (Annexure P14) directing that the word “ strict warning ” shall be read as “ warning ”.
2
CWP No.16518 of 2008.doc
is in consonance with law; and (ii) whether the petitioner could be denied promotion on the basis of punishment of ‘warning’.
(7). With reference to the first issue, suffice it to mention that the disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, to be concluded strictly in accordance with the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (in short, ‘the Rules’). Rule 9(2) of the Rules is relevant in the present context and it reads as follows:-
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) The punishing authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority or any article of charge, record its reasons for each disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.”
(8). It was thus imperative upon the disciplinary authority to record its reasons for each disagreement and convey the same to the delinquent employee. No such procedure was followed by the Director, Ayurveda while passing the impugned order dated 11th February/5th March, 2003
3
CWP No.16518 of 2008.doc
(Annexure P13) which is totally cryptic with no reason whatsoever.
(10). Since the only so-called adverse material relied upon to deny promotion to the petitioner as Superintendent Gr-II vanishes, it is imperative upon the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Superintendent Gr-II w.e.f. the date when his juniors were promoted.
(12). It may, however, be mentioned here that the punishment of ‘Censure’ is not a valid ground to withhold promotion or increment(s) of an official as expressly laid down in the Punjab Government Instructions dated 10.12.1993 (Annexure P20), the relevant part whereof reads as follows:-
“…..While considering such cases it is to be ensured that no departmental proceedings are pending. Because the punishment of Censure is the part of the service record and going through the service record of the employee it is to be considered whether employee is to be considered for grant of promotion/proficiency
4
CWP No.16518 of 2008.doc
increment and in case that upto date service record of the official is good/satisfaction and no department proceedings are pending against him and no such entry is made in the service record but as he was awarded punishment of Censure and the official is not considered for promotion/increment. In such circumstances the case of the official for promotion/increment is not being debarred and in such cases the award of Censure may not be any hindrance for promotion/increment. In the above mentioned cases, if there is no such cases then the case of the concerned official be considered after verifying the service record and as such there is no necessity to fix the period after the award of Censure.”
(13).
(14).
For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.02.2008 (Annexure P19) denying promotion to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be re-considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Gr-II with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits,
5
CWP No.16518 of 2008.doc
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
(15). Dasti .
15.09.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty of warning imposed on the petitioner is in consonance with law.
Whether the petitioner could be denied promotion on the basis of punishment of warning.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagir Singh
State of Punjab
Director Ayurveda Punjab
Respondents No.4&5
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
