IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3951 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 25.08.2009 Ranbir Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Haryana State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Panchkula and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajbir Singh Sihag, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who is working as Peon in the Office of District Primary Cooperative and Rural Development Bank Limited, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, has filed the instant petition for quashing the action of the respondents in not promoting him; and for issuing a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Clerk with effect from 30.4.2005, the date his junior was promoted by ignoring his claim. It is the admitted position that in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, his integrity was recorded CWP No. 3951 of 2008 -2- to be doubtful and overall work was assessed as `average'. Further, vide order dated 9.10.2002, in a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of stoppage of his two annual increments with cumulative effect. It is the stand of the respondents that due to these two factors, claim of the petitioner for promotion was considered and rejected, when one Suresh Kumar, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted on 30.4.2005. After hearing counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, his integrity was recorded doubtful and on the basis of the said ACR, his claim for promotion could not have been rejected in April, 2005, when his junior was promoted. Learned counsel further argued that the nature of allegations in the departmental enquiry, in which punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner, was not much serious. Therefore, the petitioner should not have been ignored by taking into consideration the said punishment. The aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. I am of the considered view that in view of the fact that in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, his integrity was recorded to be doubtful and in view of the punishment imposed vide order dated 9.10.2002, the petitioner was rightly ignored for promotion to the post of Clerk in April, 2005. No ground to interfere in the CWP No. 3951 of 2008 -3- matter is made out. Dismissed. August 25, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE