Balraj Singh vs Punjab & Haryana High Court And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2549 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balraj Singh vs Punjab & Haryana High Court And Ors on 16 March, 2026

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

CWP-623-2008                                                   -1-

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                                      CWP-623-2008

BALRAJ SINGH
                                                             ...PETITIONER

                                           VERSUS
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND ORS.
                                                             ....RESPONDENTS

1. The date when the judgment is reserved                     28.01.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced                   16.03.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded                     16.03.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is                Full
   pronounced or whether the full judgment is
   pronounced
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full            Not applicable
   judgment and reason thereof.


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with
         Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

          Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2.

          Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana
      ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of order dated

18.12.2007 (Annexure P-6) whereby representation of the petitioner has been

rejected with a further direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner for

promotion as assistant from the date juniors to the petitioner have been

promoted with grant of all consequential benefits.

1 of 9

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on regular basis on

21.08.1996 in the establishment governed by the Haryana Subordinate Courts

Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997.

During his service career he claims to have maintained a good service record

and asserts that no adverse confidential report was ever communicated to him.

However, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him on account of

negligence which resulted in the loss of a judicial document, namely the

deposition of a witness filed in a civil suit pending before the Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Fatehabad. After the conclusion of the inquiry, the

competent authority imposed a minor punishment on 09.10.2006 by stopping

one annual grade increment without cumulative effect.

3. Subsequently, a seniority list of Clerks was issued in which the

petitioner was placed at Serial No. 11, while the private respondents were

placed below him. On 18.10.2006, the respondents promoted several juniors to

the post of Assistant. The petitioner was not considered for promotion on the

ground that he was undergoing the punishment of stoppage of increment and

that, in view of the Government instructions dated 31.05.2006 issued in the

light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. S.

Murugesan 1995 (3) SCC 273, an employee undergoing punishment could

not be granted promotion during the currency of such penalty.

4. Aggrieved by his non-promotion, the petitioner submitted

representations to the authorities requesting that he be promoted on the basis

of the rule of seniority-cum-merit prescribed under the applicable service

rules. His representations were rejected by the District & Sessions Judge,

2 of 9

Fatehabad on 18.12.2007.

5. Hence, the present writ petition.

Contentions On behalf of petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a

long and unblemished service record with consistently good confidential

reports over the last ten years, and except for one minor punishment of

stoppage of increment without cumulative effect, he has never been found

unfit for promotion. It was argued that the punishment imposed on 09.10.2006

related to a period between 2002 and 2003, and as per government

instructions, the effect of such minor punishment should only reflect in the

confidential report of the period to which the misconduct pertains, not as a bar

to promotion.

7. Counsel further contended that the criteria for promotion from Clerk

to Assistant is seniority-cum-merit, and the petitioner, being senior to the

private respondents who were promoted, fulfilled all minimum standards

prescribed for promotion. He submitted that the respondents acted arbitrarily

by promoting juniors while ignoring the petitioner solely on the ground of a

minor punishment, which had no operative effect at the time of promotion.

8. It was also argued that the instructions dated 31.05.2006, relied

upon by the respondents, are arbitrary and discriminatory as they allow

authorities to manipulate the timing of punishments to deny promotion,

undermining the principle of seniority-cum-merit and equality.

On behalf of respondent

9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's

3 of 9

non-promotion was entirely justified and in accordance with law. It was

contended that the petitioner was responsible for the loss of a crucial judicial

record, and a departmental inquiry was conducted in strict compliance with

the Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. After due

consideration, a minor punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment

without cumulative effect was imposed on 09.10.2006, which has been upheld

by the High Court in the petitioner's service appeal.

10. Counsel argued that the petitioner was undergoing the currency of

this punishment at the time when the juniors were promoted on 18.10.2006.

Government instructions dated 31.05.2006, issued in light of the Supreme

Court's judgment in K. S. Murugesan (supra), explicitly provide that no

promotion can be granted during the currency of a punishment, even if minor.

Therefore, the deferment of the petitioner's promotion was in strict

compliance with these instructions and is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

11. It was further submitted that the petitioner's argument regarding the

period of misconduct is misconceived. Although the misconduct relates to an

earlier period, the punishment order attaches immediately upon its issuance,

and its effect on promotion is valid regardless of the operative financial

consequences of the increment. The respondents maintained that a post of

Assistant was deliberately kept vacant so that the petitioner could be

considered for promotion once the punishment period is complete,

demonstrating fairness and proportionality.

12. Counsel emphasized that the petitioner's promotion was deferred,

not denied, and that the principle of seniority-cum-merit does not override

4 of 9

administrative instructions or the proper exercise of disciplinary authority.

Accordingly, the action of promoting juniors while the petitioner's

punishment was in force was lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the

rules and prevailing judicial precedents.

10. Arguments were heard and the judgement was kept reserved on

28.01.2026.

Legal Issue

Whether an employee undergoing a validly imposed minor disciplinary punishment can be lawfully denied promotion during the currency of such punishment, notwithstanding the principle of seniority-cum-merit

Analysis

11. The Court has carefully considered the submissions of learned

counsel for the petitioner and respondents, the statutory rules, government

instructions, and the relevant judicial precedents. The central issue for

determination is whether a minor disciplinary punishment can lawfully defer

promotion of a senior employee under the principle of seniority-cum-merit.

12. It is well settled that the doctrine of seniority-cum-merit does not

operate in absolute isolation. While seniority is an important factor in

promotion, the employee must also meet the minimum standards of merit and

integrity, and disciplinary actions affecting suitability may legitimately be

taken into account.

13. The Court places significant emphasis on the Government

instructions dated 31.05.2006 (P/9), which expressly provide that an employee

undergoing the currency of a disciplinary punishment shall not be considered

for promotion. These instructions were issued in compliance with the

5 of 9

judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K.S.

Murugesan 1995(3) SCC 273, where it was held that disciplinary

consequences may legitimately affect promotional eligibility, and such

consideration does not constitute double jeopardy. The rationale underlying

this principle is rooted in the dual objectives of public service: maintaining

merit-based advancement while ensuring accountability and integrity in

service. Relevant extract of the same is under:

7. It would thus be clear that when promotion is under consideration, the previous record forms basis and when the promotion is on merit and ability, the currency of punishment based on previous record stands on impediment. Unless the period of punishment gets expired by efflux of time, the claim for consideration during the said period cannot be taken up. Otherwise, it would amount to retrospective promotion which is impressible under the Rules and it would be premium on misconduct. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the doctrine of double jeopardy has no application and non- consideration is neither violative of Article 21 nor Article 14 read with 16 of the Constitution.

14. The instructions aim to prevent a situation where an employee found

negligent or otherwise responsible for misconduct is prematurely advanced to

a higher post before the disciplinary consequences have been fully

implemented. By making promotion contingent on the completion of the

punishment period, the administration ensures that the individual being

promoted has met all the requisite standards of conduct and integrity at the

time of promotion. This serves the larger public interest of preserving the

credibility and efficiency of the service, particularly in sensitive

establishments like the subordinate judiciary where the petitioner was

6 of 9

employed.

15. Moreover, these instructions act as a practical safeguard against

manipulation of the timing of disciplinary actions. Without such a rule, an

authority could face situations where the effect of a punishment is nullified for

the purposes of promotion, potentially undermining the deterrent effect of

disciplinary measures and creating inconsistency in the application of rules.

The suitability for promotion must consider both seniority and merit, and

disciplinary infractions are a legitimate aspect of assessing merit. In this light,

deferring promotion during the currency of punishment is both legally valid

and administratively sound.

16. The Court also observes that the instructions do not permanently bar

the employee from promotion; rather, they defer consideration until the

employee completes the punishment period. In the instant case, the

respondents even kept a post vacant specifically to accommodate the

petitioner once the punishment period concludes. This demonstrates that the

administration acted in good faith, with proportionality, and in alignment with

the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, balancing the employee's

seniority against the necessity of preserving discipline and integrity in public

service.

17. Given this context, it is clear that the petitioner's non-promotion

during the currency of his punishment was neither arbitrary nor

discriminatory. It was a lawful implementation of instructions issued in

conformity with binding Supreme Court precedents. These instructions ensure

that promotion is conferred only when an employee is fully eligible in terms

of conduct and service record, which justifies the dismissal of the present writ

7 of 9

petition.

18. The Court notes the principle that the effect of a disciplinary order

attaches from the date of its imposition, even if the financial consequence

arises later. This is consistent with the doctrine of legitimate expectation; an

employee cannot claim promotion during a subsisting period of punishment,

as the administration is entitled to assess suitability only after the punishment

is completed. Government instructions issued on 31.05.2006 clarify that

employees undergoing punishment cannot be promoted during its currency,

which is a reasonable and proportionate exercise of administrative discretion

aimed at preserving discipline.

19. The principle of equality under Articles 14 and 16 does not compel

the administration to treat employees under punishment on par with

unblemished employees. Equality under the Constitution applies to equals,

and differential treatment is permissible where there is a material distinction in

circumstances, such as the imposition of a disciplinary penalty. The

petitioner's deferment, in this context, is not discriminatory but a lawful

application of rules and instructions.

20. Moreover, judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining

whether the administrative action is illegal, arbitrary, or malafide. In the

present case, the respondents have kept a post vacant to ensure the petitioner's

promotion is considered after completion of punishment, demonstrating

proportionality and fairness. The administrative action was taken in

accordance with statutory rules, government instructions, and binding judicial

precedents.

8 of 9

Conclusion

21. In view of these principles, the Court finds no merit in the

contention that the petitioner's promotion was unlawfully denied. The minor

punishment imposed on the petitioner lawfully deferred his promotion without

violating the principles of seniority-cum-merit, equality, or fairness.

22. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

23. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

                                                        (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
                                                             JUDGE
16.03.2026
Meenu


Whether speaking/reasoned        :            Yes/No
Whether reportable              :             Yes/No




                                     9 of 9