CWP No.3192 of 2006.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3192 of 2006 Date of Decision: 08.03.2010 **** Santokh Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 25.02.2005 (Annexure P3), whereby, respondent No.4 is said to have been promoted from the post of Conductor to Sub-Inspector. According to the official respondents, it is a case of re-designation only and not of ‘promotion’. (2). Shorn of the details, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were senior to respondent No.4 in the cadre of Conductors. As per the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, respondent No.4 has been CWP No.3192 of 2006.doc - 2 – re-designated as Sub-Inspector after following the criteria of seniority-cum-merit and that the claim of the petitioners was duly considered. The petitioners have been ignored for the purpose of re-designation on the plea that there are not one but several orders of punishment of stoppage of increments with/without cumulative effect passed against them. Keeping those adverse orders in view that they have been ignored and respondent No.4 promoted. (3). On a perusal of Annexure R1, which contains service particular of the petitioners, it is revealed that all of them have now retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The details of the punishment imposed upon the petitioners vide several orders passed from time to time, during their service career, are as under:- NO. OF INCREMENTS WITHHELD With Cumulative Effect Without Cumulative Effect A.C.R. remarks Petitioner No.1 24 increments 3 increments Brought down on 10-years time scale Petitioner No.2 33 increments 4 increments Punishment effective till 2008 Petitioner No.3 26 increments 6 increments Brought down on 2-years time scale Petitioner No.4 40 increments 5 increments Brought down on 4-years time scale Petitioner No.5 32 increments 13 increments Brought down on 15-years time scale Petitioner No.6 31 increments 17 increments Brought down on 14-years time scale CWP No.3192 of 2006.doc - 3 – (4). The petitioners might have earned ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’ Annual Confidential Reports during the last five years. However, the above-mentioned repeated punishments awarded to them, in my considered view, constituted sufficient adverse material so as to hold the petitioners unsuitable for promotion. No interference is, therefore, called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (5). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 08.03.2010 vishal shonkar