Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhmandar Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 13 December, 2023
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159562
CWP No. 12382 of 2017 2023:PHHC:159562 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : 29.08.2023
Date of Decision: 13.12.2023
1. CWP No. 12382 of 2017 (O&M)
Sukhminder Singh ....Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
2. CWP No. 10529 of 2019 (O&M)
Sukhminder Singh .....Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
3. CWP No. 21786 of 2018 (O&M)
Baljeet Singh .....Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate, for petitioner- Sukhminder Singh
in CWP No. 12382 of 2017 and 10529 of 2019).
Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate,
for petitioner- Baljeet Singh in CWP No. 21786 of 2018.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
This order of mine shall dispose of aforesaid three writ petitions
as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. In CWP No. 12382 of 2017 filed by petitioner - Sukhminder
Singh, prayer is for quashing of order dated 22.05.2017 reverting him from
the post of Senior Assistant to the post of Junior Assistant, and also quashing
the order dated 12.04.2013 whereby punishment of stoppage of two annual
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159562
CWP No. 12382 of 2017 2023:PHHC:159562 (2)
increments with cumulative effect has been imposed. Also quashing of order
dated 14.10.2013, whereby the petitioner was punished with stoppage of two
increments without cumulative effect.
3. In CWP No. 10529 of 2019 filed by petitioner- Sukhminder
Singh, prayer is for quashing of order dated 12.04.2019 whereby it has been
ordered to pay him salary of the post of Senior Assistant instead of
Superintendent Grade-II. Further prayer is for posting him as Superintendent
Grade-II and release the salary of the petitioner during the pendency of the
writ petition.
4. In CWP No. 21786 of 2018 filed by petitioner Baljeet Singh
(impleaded Respondent no. 4 in CWP No.12382 of 2017), prayer is for
quashing of order dated 21.06.2018 whereby respondent no. 4 - Sukhminder
Singh (writ petitioner in the aforesaid writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 12382
of 2017 and 10529 of 2019) has been promoted to the post of Superintendent
Grade-II.
Brief Facts
5. It is stated that reversion of petitioner - Sukhminder Singh from
the post of Senior Assistant to the post of Junior Assistant was challenged in
CWP No. 12382 of 2017 and stay order was initially passed on 12.06.2017
and reversion of the petitioner was stayed.
6. On 08.05.2019, status quo order was passed by this Court in
CWP No. 10529 of 2019. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it
has been stated that respondent no. 2 issued posting order of petitioner -
Sukhaminder Singh as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Sub-
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159562
CWP No. 12382 of 2017 2023:PHHC:159562 (3)
Divisional Magistrate, Maur on 29.05.2019. The respondents have also
released salary of the petitioner.
7. The interim order granted to the petitioner on 10.05.2019 was
vacated vide order dated 16.10.2019.
8. Since there was status quo order, CM No. 8479-CWP of 2021 in
CWP No. 10529 of 2019 has been moved by the respondent- State for
vacating the status quo order so that the order of reversion can be
implemented. It is stated that petitioner Sukhminder Singh suffered
punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order
dated 12.04.2013. Appeal against the said order was rejected on 01.09.2015.
By another order dated 14.10.2013, he was again punished with stoppage of
two annual increments without cumulative effect relating to a separate
charge. Appeal thereto was rejected on 29.07.2015.
9. The post of Senior Assistant was to be filled by way of
promotion from Clerks, who have working experience of minimum five
years. Earlier petitioner - Sukhminder Singh was wrongly promoted as
Senior Assistant on 20.08.2014 ignoring the punishments. However, it was
realized that during the currency of penalty period, he could not have been
promoted and, therefore, the order of promotion was re-called and he was
reverted back to his original post vide order dated 22.05.2017. It has been
stated that the currency of the punishment order would survive upto
14.10.2017, therefore, he was reverted to the post of Junior Assistant. The
order dated 22.05.2017 was challenged by him in CWP No. 12382 of 2017
and the said order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2017. In
the meanwhile, one post of Superintendent Grade-II fell vacant and names of
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159562
CWP No. 12382 of 2017 2023:PHHC:159562 (4)
petitioner- Sukhminder Singh and respondent no.4 Baljeet Singh were sent
by the department. Petitioner - Sukhminder Singh being senior was promoted
as Superintendent Grade-II on 20.06.2018 subject to final outcome of CWP
No. 12382 of 2017. He, therefore, joined as Superintendent Grade-II on
31.05.2019. The petitioner's challenge in CWP No. 10529 of 2019 to the
order dated 12.04.2019 reverting him to the post of Senior Assistant has
become redundant. However, other two writ petitions, one filed by petitioner
Sukhminder Singh bearing CWP No. 12382 of 2017 and CWP No. 21786 of
2018 filed by petitioner - Baljeet Singh (respondent no.4 in CWP Nos. 12382
of 2017) are pending and the issue is relating to the aforesaid aspects, it
would be appropriate to decide finally all the three writ petitions together
and, therefore, they were heard together.
10. Petitioner in CWP No. 12382 of 2017 submits that the order of
reversion dated 22.05.2017 reverting him from the post of Senior Assistant to
the post of Junior Assistant after having worked for more than three years on
the higher post based on anonymous complaint was illegal and unjustified.
The petitioner also challenges the order of 12.04.2013 whereby he was
punished with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and also
order dated 14.10.2013 whereby he was punished with stoppage of two
annual increments without cumulative effect.
11. This Court finds that the challenge to the order dated 12.04.2013
and 14.10.2013 is highly belated. The punishment has been awarded to
petitioner - Sukhminder Singh for not taking action for filing RSA against
the judgment passed in appeal filed by the government dated 21.01.2009
ignoring the letter dated 01.07.2009 for taking steps in getting the replies
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159562
CWP No. 12382 of 2017 2023:PHHC:159562 (5)
vetted so that the interest and time of the government is not affected. The
petitioner having been held guilty of the said charges after giving due
opportunity of being heard, appeal was also heard and dismissed against the
order of punishment. On account of his inaction, even after lapse of 12 years,
RSA could not be filed. Thus, the allegations have been proved by the
Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order. There is
no procedural illegality while passing the punishment order dated 12.04.2013
and does not warrant interference.
12. In the other order dated 14.10.2013 punishment of stoppage of
two increments without cumulative effect has been passed. Procedure for
imposing minor penalty was duly adopted and petitioner- Sukhminder Singh
was punished for not sending the file relating to enquiry of Mai Sarkhana
Mandir to the District Attorney, Bathinda. Thus, it is a case where the
petitioner has been constantly slacking in his duties relating to watching the
interest of the State Government in Court cases, for which he has been
punished. Keeping in view thereto, the prayer made by the petitioner for
quashing of the said punishment order is also found to be without basis and
also an afterthought and belated, merely to protect himself from reversion
from the post of Senior Assistant to which he was promoted without taking
note of the punishment orders.
13. It is settled law that a person who has been punished for
delinquencies cannot be awarded promotion at the same time. Having noticed
that two annual increments with cumulative effect has been stopped, the
petitioner could not have been promoted by the respondent-department and as
soon as the said error was noticed, the same could be corrected. Learned
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159562
CWP No. 12382 of 2017 2023:PHHC:159562 (6)
counsel for the respondent- State has relied upon a circular issued relating to
erroneous promotions, which reads as under:-
"4. Erroneous promotions
Except where the appointing authority is the President,
the question whether promotion/ appointment of a particular
Government servant to a post was erroneous or not should be
decided by an authority next higher than the appointing
authority in accordance with the established principles
governing promotions/ appointments. Where the appointing
authority is the President, the decision should rest with the
President and should be final. The Department of Personnel and
Training should be consulted in respect of promotion /
appointments in the Service administratively controlled by that
Department. In other cases also, Department of Personnel and
Training may be consulted if any point is doubtful.
The cases of erroneous promotion/ appointment in a
substantive or officiating capacity should be reviewed with
serious concern and suitable disciplinary action should be taken
against the officer and staff responsible for such erroneous
promotion.
[Ministry of Finance Memo No. F.1 (3)-Estt.III/59 dated 14-3-
63]."
14. This Court also noticed in CWP No. 15297 of 2012 - Mahinder
Singh vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another decided on
01.12.2012, in a somewhat similar situation where a person was promoted
wrongfully without noticing the ACRs of the said individual. The promotion
awarded earlier was re-called and the person was reverted. The order of
reversion was challenged before this Court and this Court following
judgment of this Court in Sadhu Singh Versus State of Punjab and others,
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159562
CWP No. 12382 of 2017 2023:PHHC:159562 (7)
2001 (4) RSJ, 7, Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in P.
Shiva Versus Union of India and others, 2004(2) RSJ, 82 and judgment of
learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in K.R.Natarajan
Versus Personnel Manager, Syndicate Bank, 2003 (2) SLR, 293. The
relevant extract of Mahinder Singh's case (supra), reads as under:-
"In the light of the above position, the impugned order of
reversion dated 29.6.2012 (Annexure-P-10), passed by the
Director, Treasuries and Accounts Department, Haryana, is
justified and no fault can be found with the order which has
been passed reverting the petitioner back to the post of District
Treasurer.
The judgments, which have been relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioner in Sadhu Singh's case (supra) is a case
where the impugned order has been passed after a period of
twenty two years and in those circumstances, the Court had
proceeded to state that the said reversion order could not be
passed. It would not be out of way to mention here that, that was
not a case where the integrity of the official was doubted. In the
cases of P. Shiva and K.R. Natarajan (supra), those were cases
where the selection for empanelment was involved and there
were mistakes committed in making calculations which had
resulted into passing an order of demotion. Therefore, those
cases cannot be quoted and made applicable to the claim of the
petitioner in the present writ petition."
15. In the light of the above, this Court finds that petitioner -
Sukhminder Singh could not be continued on the post of Senior Assistant to
which he had been wrongly promoted. His reversion order, therefore, has
rightly been passed. It is also noticed that this Court on 16.10.2019 vacated
the interim order passed earlier on 10.05.2019 staying reversion of petitioner
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159562
CWP No. 12382 of 2017 2023:PHHC:159562 (8)
- Sukhminder Singh. The second writ petition of Sukhminder Singh
petitioner, namely, CWP No. 10529 of 2019 is a consequential writ petition.
Once petitioner - Sukhminder Singh is found to be rightfully reverted from
the post of Senior Assistant to the post of Junior Assistant, further promotion
granted to him subject to final outcome of CWP No. 12382 of 2017 would
also have to go. Accordingly, the writ petition, namely, CWP No. 10529 of
2019 filed by petitioner - Sukhminder Singh for posting as Superintendent
Grade-II treating him as promoted on the post of Senior Assistant from which
he has already been held to be rightly reverted is, therefore, without merits
and the same deserves to be dismissed.
16. CWP No. 21786 of 2018 is a writ petition filed by Baljeet Singh,
a person who is junior to petitioner - Sukhminder Singh and claims
promotion on the post of Superintendent Grade-II. While taking into
consideration the orders passed hereinabove and finding that promotion
awarded to Sukhminder Singh (respondent no. 4 in CWP No. 21786 of 2018,
writ petitioner in CWP No. 12382 of 2017 and CWP No. 10529 of 2019) is
found to be admissible. The same is accordingly allowed. The case of
petitioner Baljeet Singh shall now be considered as per his service record by
holding DPC, if Baljeet Singh is found to be suitable, he is to be promoted.
17. It goes without saying that respondent no. 4 - Sukhminder Singh
shall also be considered, after the completion of currency of the punishment,
for promotion from the post of Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant. However,
the same shall not in any manner affect petitioner - Baljeet Singh for further
promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II.
18. Accordingly, CWP No. 21786 of 2018 filed by petitioner Baljeet
Singh is allowed. All Pending applications also stand allowed accordingly.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159562
CWP No. 12382 of 2017 2023:PHHC:159562 (9)
19. CWP Nos. 12382 of 2017 and CWP No. 10529 of 2019 are
accordingly dismissed. All pending applications therein are also dismissed.
All interim orders shall stand vacated.
20. No costs.
13.12.2023 [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]
vs JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159562
9 of 9
