Civil Writ Petition No. 17466 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNAJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 31, 2008 Kashmiri Lal ............ Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and others ............. Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present: Shri J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner Shri O.P. Sharma, Addl. AG Haryana, for respondent No.1 Shri J.S. Duhan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4. Shri Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for respondents No. 6 to 11 HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of Annexure P-7 dated 11.12.2004 whereby the petitioner was not promoted but his juniors were promoted to the post of Junior Accountant. It is pointed out by the petitioner that he was charge-sheeted on 04.12.2002 while working as Executive Officer in Branch Office, Chandhut. The petitioner submitted his reply but thereafter he did not receive any correspondence with respect to the said charge-sheet. Still further, on 27.01.2004, the petitioner was again charge-sheeted, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-4. The petitioner submitted his reply but in respect of the said charge-sheet, again he did not receive any Civil Writ Petition No. 17466 of 2005 [2] communication. But on 10.12.2004, few Clerks, who were junior to the petitioner, were promoted as Junior Accountants and, thus, aggrieved against the action of promotion of his juniors, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. In reply, it has been pointed out that in respect of the charge- sheet served on 4.12.2002, punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner. A copy of the order dated 20-09-2005 imposing such punishment has been produced in the Court today. In respect of second charge-sheet, the petitioner was warned to be careful in future. It is, thus, contended that on the date the matter of promotion was considered, disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were pending and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been promoted on the said date. Mr. Duhan has further pointed out that after the completion of the punishment period, the case of the petitioner has been reconsidered and the petitioner has been promoted vide order dated 27.03.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted soon after the completion of punishment period of stoppage of two annual increments as in the case of Khem Chand in terms of order Annexure P-7, whereas the petitioner has been promoted much after the punishment is over. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that, in fact, Khem Chand has also been promoted as Junior Accountant vide order dated 27.03.2008 itself. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In order Annexure P-7, it is mentioned that the case of Khem Chand was Civil Writ Petition No. 17466 of 2005 [3] considered for promotion and it was found that punishment of stoppage of two annual increments has been awarded. It was stipulated that said Khem Chand will be promoted as Junior Accountant on the expiry of punishment period. A perusal of the said order would show that in case of Khem Chand, punishment has already been awarded and, therefore, he was considered eligible for promotion after the expiry of punishment period. After the expiry of the punishment period, his case was considered for Junior Accountant on the same date as that of the petitioner i.e. 27.03.2008. In respect of the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were pending on the date of consideration of his case. Since disciplinary proceedings were pending, the petitioner could not be promoted on the post of Junior Accountant. It is only after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the expiry of the punishment period, the case of the petitioner for promotion was required to be considered and after such consideration, the petitioner has been promoted. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 11.12.2004, Annexure P-7, vide which the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion, when his juniors were promoted. Consequently, present writ petition is hereby dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE March 31, 2008 (MOHINDER PAL) ks JUDGE