Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbir Singh Chahal vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 1 February, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014123
CWP No. 17835 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:014123
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(230) CWP No. 17835 of 2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 01.02.2024
Dr. Rajbir Singh Chahal
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. I.P. Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Middha, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that
he was senior most Sub Divisional Officer working in the Animal
Husbandry and Dairying Department eligible to be promoted to the post
of Deputy Director Animal Husbandry.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of
the petitioner was considered for promotion keeping in view the fact that
he was a senior most Sub Divisional Officer and fulfill all the
requirements for promotion but he was not promoted on the ground that
there is an FIR No. 75 dated 28.01.2020 pending against him and keeping
in view the fact that the criminal proceedings were treated to be pending
against him, he was not promoted to the said post of Deputy Director and
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014123
CWP No. 17835 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:014123
the employees juniors to him were promoted on 29.09.2020 vide
Annexure P-5.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denying the
petitioner the promotion to the post of Deputy Director on the ground that
the criminal proceedings are pending is contrary to the settled principle
of law, hence, respondents are under obligation to re-consider the claim
of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director with effect
from the date the employees juniors to him were promoted.
4. Learned State counsel submits that once concededly on the
day when the juniors were promoted, the claim of the petitioner was
considered but keeping in view the fact that there was an FIR registered
against him due to which fact department was of the opinion that
criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner, the petitioner
could not be promoted during the pendency of the criminal proceedings,
hence, there is nothing wrong in the action of the department in not
promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director.
5. Learned State counsel further submits that thereafter, on
09.11.2020, a charge-sheet for initiating disciplinary proceedings have
also been issued and the petitioner has already retired from service after
attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2021, hence, no relief can
be given to the petitioner, at this stage as he has already retired.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014123
CWP No. 17835 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:014123
7. The only question is whether, the respondents could have
withheld the promotion of the petitioner despite being the senior most in
the Cadre on the ground that there were criminal proceedings pending
against him. No doubt, the FIR No. 75 dated 28.01.2020 was pending
against the petitioner on the day when the name of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of Deputy Director was considered but whether,
mere pendency of the FIR will be good enough to deny the benefit of
promotion to the petitioner or not. It is a conceded position even as of
now in the FIR No. 75 dated 28.01.2020, no charges were ever framed
against the petitioner. Rather no challan was submitted against the
petitioner and the petitioner was exonerated after the investigation.
8. That being the factual position qua FIR No. 75 dated
28.01.2020, once no charges were framed against the petitioner, cannot
be said that the criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner
on the day when he was considered for promotion and his juniors were
promoted to the post of Deputy Director.
9. The said question of law has already been settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while passing order in Union of India
Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, wherein, the pendency of
criminal proceedings as well as disciplinary proceedings has been
explained. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
K.V. Jankiraman(supra), departmental proceedings can be treated to be
pending in case a charge-sheet has been served similarly qua the criminal
proceedings in case, charges have been framed against an accused, the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014123
CWP No. 17835 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:014123
criminal proceedings can be treated to be pending. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is as under :-
"On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of
the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal
proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench
of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo
in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal
prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that
the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is
initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure
is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet
is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to
that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to
adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with
the Tribunal on this point...."(Emphasis added).".
10. In the present case, not even the challan was submitted
against the petitioner and in the investigation, the petitioner was
exonerated by the investigating agency, hence, on the date when the
petitioner was considered for promotion for the post of Deputy Director
Animal Husbandry, there were no charges framed against the petitioner in
respect of FIR No. 75 dated 28.01.2020 and rather, he was exonerated by
the Investigating Agency, denying the benefit of promotion on the ground
that the criminal proceedings were pending against him, is contrary to the
settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
K.V. Jankiraman (supra).
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to
rebut the said proposition of law.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014123
CWP No. 17835 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:014123
12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present
case stated here-in-before, denying of the promotion to the petitioner in
the facts and circumstances of the present case by treating that the
criminal proceedings were pending, is totally arbitrary and illegal and
contrary to the settled principle of law.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the
post of Deputy Director with effect from the date, the employees, who
were juniors to the petitioner have been promoted and in case, petitioner
is found fit in all respects, appropriate order granting him the said benefit
be given from the date the juniors were promoted. Let the consideration
be taken place within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order and appropriate order in terms of the present direction
be passed.
14. Petition is allowed in above terms.
Any miscellaneous application, if pending, stands disposed
of.
February 1st, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014123
5 of 5
