Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State vs Kirpal Singh on 18 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052263
RSA-1583-1999 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052263
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(203) RSA-1583-1999 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 18.04.2024
The Punjab State and others
...Appellants
Versus
Sh. Kirpal Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellants.
Mr. Sachin Kalia, Advocate for
Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgments and
decrees of the courts below dated 06.09.1996 and 27.10.1998 by which
the claim of the respondent-plaintiff for promotion to the post of Head
Constable with effect from the date defendants No. 5 to 7 were promoted,
has been allowed.
2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct
appreciation of the issue in hand.
3. The respondent-plaintiff was serving as a Constable with the
appellants-Punjab Police since 07.08.1974. While working as such, a
charge-sheet was served upon the respondent-plaintiff alleging certain
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052263
RSA-1583-1999 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052263
allegations and after concluding the departmental proceeding, a major
punishment was imposed forfeiting eight years of service of the
respondent-plaintiff. The said punishment order was passed in the year
1985. The respondent-plaintiff raised a challenge to the said punishment
order in the civil suit and ultimately, in the regular second appeal, the
punishment of forfeiture of eight years of service was converted into
punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide
judgment and decree dated 20.08.1991 by this Court.
4. In the meanwhile, the private defendants No. 5 to 7 were
further promoted to the post of Head Constable on 15.12.1989 ignoring
the claim of promotion of the respondent-plaintiff. After the punishment
of forfeiture of eight years of service was converted into the punishment
of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect in the year 1991, the
respondent-plaintiff was also promoted to the post of Head Constable on
01.07.1992 but the respondent-plaintiff claimed the benefit of promotion
with effect from the date his juniors i.e. defendants No. 5 to 7 were
promoted with all consequential benefits. The respondent-plaintiff filed a
civil suit claiming the said benefit of promotion, which was allowed by
the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.1996 keeping in
view the evidence on record that once, only punishment of stoppage of
one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed, the same
amounts to imposition of minor punishment, hence, the promotion of the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052263
RSA-1583-1999 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052263
respondent-plaintiff cannot be stopped on the basis of the minor
punishment.
5. The said judgment and decree of the trial court dated
06.09.1996 was appealed by the State and the said appeal was also
dismissed by the lower appellate court on 27.10.1996, hence the present
regular second appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants argues that the
benefit of promotion with effect from the date defendants No. 5 to 7 have
been promoted, has been allowed by the courts below in favour of the
respondent-plaintiff on the ground that punishment of stoppage of one
increment with cumulative effect is a minor punishment and hence,
cannot affect the seniority of the respondent-plaintiff, whereas keeping in
view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil
Appeal No. 2960 of 1987 titled as Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. The State of
Punjab, decided on 13.09.1990, stoppage of increment with cumulative
effect is a major punishment, hence, once the punishment of forfeiture of
eight years of service was converted to stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect, the same remains as a major punishment so as to debar
respondent-plaintiff the benefit of promotion to the next higher cadre with
effect from the date private defendants were promoted, which fact/law has
been totally ignored by the courts below.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants further
submits that as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052263
RSA-1583-1999 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052263
CWP No. 18857 of 1997 titled as Amar Singh Vs. State of Haryana,
decided on 19.12.1997, imposition of any major punishment result in
automatic removal of a person's name from the promotion list and hence,
the grant of relief by the courts below of promotion with effect from the
date defendants No. 5 to 7 were promoted, is contrary to the settled
principle of law in Amar Singh (supra).
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that
once, the punishment imposed upon the respondent-plaintiff has been
reduced from forfeiture of eight years of service to stoppage of one
increment with cumulative effect, there was no impediment in the
promotion of the respondent-plaintiff with effect from the date defendants
No. 5 to 7 were promoted, hence, the judgments and decrees of the courts
below are perfectly valid and are liable to be upheld.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
10. From the facts stated herein above, it is clear that on the date
when the promotions of defendants No. 5 to 7 were effected, the
respondent-plaintiff was initially serving the punishment of forfeiture of
eight years of service though, in the year 1991, the said punishment was
modified by this Court to that of stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect.
11. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Kulwant Singh Gill's case (supra), stoppage of increment with
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052263
RSA-1583-1999 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052263
cumulative effect amounts to a major punishment. Further, the Division
Bench of this Court in CWP No. 11338 of 2001 titled as Vinod Kumar
Vs. Punjab Backward Classes Land Development and Finance
Corporation & Others, decided on 13.01.2003 has also held that
punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is a
major punishment and hence, should have only been imposed after
holding the due enquiry and not by issuing of a show cause notice. The
judgment of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra), was relied upon while passing
the said order, hence, as per the judgment in Vinod Kumar (supra),
stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment.
12. Once, a major punishment was imposed upon the
respondent-plaintiff and was operative at the time when defendants No. 5
to 7 were promoted in the year 1989, the respondent-plaintiff cannot
claim that there was no impediment in promotion of the respondent-
plaintiff from the date when defendants No. 5 to 7 were promoted. Once,
a major punishment was suffered by the respondent-plaintiff at the time
when defendants No. 5 to 7 were promoted, the judgments and decrees of
the courts below, which have been passed granting the benefit of
promotion to the respondent-plaintiff is contrary to the settled principle of
law noticed here-in-before.
13. Keeping in view the fact that the respondent-plaintiff
suffered a major punishment, which has been described as a minor
punishment by the courts below so as to grant the relief, the judgments
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052263
RSA-1583-1999 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052263
and decrees of the courts below are perverse and cannot be sustained,
especially in view of the settled principle of law noticed here-in-before.
Hence, the present regular second appeal is allowed. The judgments and
decrees of the courts below are set-aside and the suit filed by the
respondent-plaintiff is dismissed.
14. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
April 18th, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
