State Of Haryana And Others vs Hc Kuldeep And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 21249 P&H

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 21249 P&H
Judgement Date : 6 December, 2023

Punjab-Haryana High Court

State Of Haryana And Others vs Hc Kuldeep And Another on 6 December, 2023

Author: Ritu Bahri

Bench: Ritu Bahri

                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:156164-DB




LPA-1124-2022 (O&M)                 2023:PHHC:156164-DB                 -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                                         LPA-1124-2022 (O&M)
                                         Date of decision: 06.12.2023


State of Haryana and others
                                                              ...Appellants
                          Vs.

HC Kuldeep and another
                                                              ...Respondents



CORAM:      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present:    Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
            for the appellants.

            Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate,
            and Mr. Arnav Udai Singh, Advocate,
            for respondent No.1.

                   ***

Ritu Bahri, Acting Chief Justice

CM-2728-LPA-2022

1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed

and delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.

LPA-1124-2022 (O&M)

2. The instant appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent

Appeal, is against the judgment dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned

Single Judge of this Court, whereby petition (CWP-5915-2022) filed by

petitioner-respondent No.1 has been allowed and the respondent-State

(appellant herein) has been directed to promote the petitioner to the post of

Assistant Sub Inspector from the date his junior was promoted.

3. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the only reason

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:156164-DB

LPA-1124-2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:156164-DB -2-

for denying promotion to the petitioner-respondent No.1 was that he was

awarded censure by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Faridabad on

01.10.2016, which was valid only for a period of six months i.e. up till

01.04.2017. After expiry of six months, his case for promotion was not

considered and person junior to the petitioner (respondent No.1) was

promoted vide order dated 11.10.2021.

4. The petitioner-respondent No.1 challenged the order dated

11.10.2021 (Annexure P-11) by filing the aforesaid writ petition, which was

allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order/judgment dated 08.08.2022

keeping in view the judgment passed by this Court in HC Dilsher Singh vs.

State of Haryana and others, 2009 (1) SCT 584. In that case, while

examining Rule 13.8A of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to

State of Haryana), it was held that in case of punishment of censure, the bar

is only for a period of six months.

5. In the facts of the present case, punishment of cnsure, which

came to an end after six months, should not be made basis for denying

promotion to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner-respondent No.1 refers to the

order dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Commissioner of

Police, Faridabad on a representation filed by the petitioner, whereby

adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the period from 01.04.2016 to

26.09.2016 were categorized as 'good'. The said order was passed in the

year 2017 and the person, junior to petitioner-respondent No.1, was

promoted on 11.10.2021 (Annexure P-11).

7. A perusal of the ACR (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner shows that against the column of honesty, it was recorded as 'doubtful'. However, vide order dated 17.07.2017 (annexure P-8), these adverse remarks were 2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:156164-DB

LPA-1124-2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:156164-DB -3-

categorized as 'good' and everything else was satisfactory.

8. Since the representation was made only against the adverse

remarks, which were categorized as 'good', the argument of learned counsel

for the appellant-State that only average was categorized as good, cannot be

accepted.

9. After going through the contents of appeal as well as the

impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the order dated

11.10.2021 (Annexure P-11) has been rightly set aside by learned Single

Judge and the appellant-State has been directed to grant promotion to the

petitioner-respondent No.1 to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from the