C.W.P. No. 11637 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11637 of 2007 Date of decision : 9.5.2008. ... Constable Vinod Kumar ................ Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. S.N. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ... Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) By filing this writ petition, petitioner prays that order dated 23.2.2007 (P-3), vide which his name was excluded from the select list B-1, be quashed. It is apparent from the records that when petitioner's name was being considered for bringing him on select list B-1, he was undergoing punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, i.e. a minor punishment. In the order Annexure P- 3, it appears that due to some mistake, it was mentioned that he was being detained on account of his undergoing a major punishment. C.W.P. No. 11637 of 2007 -2- We feel that it was only a typographical mistake. On account of that by recording following contention of counsel for the petitioner, notice of motion was issued on 2.8.2007:- “Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of stoppage of two increments with temporary effect vide order Annexure P-2. It is wrongly been recorded in the order Annexure P-3 that the punishment is major. Whereas, it is submitted that the stoppage of two increments with temporary effect is a minor punishment. Learned counsel further submits that even if the petitioner has been punished by awarding him the stoppage of two increments with temporary effect still his case can be considered for being deputed to the B-1 course in terms of Punjab Police Rules 13.7 sub-clause 10.” On notice, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated as under:- “That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable in the eyes of law. The Government have established two India Reserve Battalions. The Constables of these Battalions are not eligible for promotion to the rank of Head Constables due to length of service and in order fill up the vacancies of Head Constables in both the Battalions, it was decided that the Constables of other units may be approved in promotion list B-1 after conducting C.W.P. No. 11637 of 2007 -3- departmental test as per rules with the condition that they have to serve in these Battalions for a period of three years extendable upto five years. Accordingly, willingness of Constables were called and the petitioner also opted to compete the test. The petitioner appeared in the test but his name was not approved in list B as he was undergoing punishment. PPR 13.7 (12) provides that no Constable during the period when he is undergoing punishment shall be eligible for entry into promotion list B. 2. As the selected Constables will be promoted to fill up the vacancies of Head Constables, the petitioner would not have been eligible for promotion to the rank of Head Constable as he was undergoing punishment of stoppage of two future increments and the very purpose for which the Constables of other units were called to fill up the vacancies of Head Constables in India Reserve Battalions would have been defeated. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tamilnadu Vs. Thiru K.S. Muragesan & others (CA Nos. 3432-33 of 1995) decided on 28.2.1995 reported as 1995 (3) page RSJ 271, the Hon'ble Court held that: “..........Unless the period of punishment gets expired by efflux of time, the claim for consideration during the said period cannot be C.W.P. No. 11637 of 2007 -4- taken up. Otherwise, it would amount to retrospective promotion, which is impermissible under the Rules and it would be a premium on misconduct. Doctrine of double jeopardy has no application and non-consideration is neither violative of Article 21 nor Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.” In view of above judgment, the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana has also issued instructions vide letter No. 2/5/2006-2GSI 31.5.2006 (Annexure R/1) that no promotion should be allowed to any employee during the currency of punishment of stoppage of his grade increment(s). Moreover, the said punishment was awarded for taking gratification from the criminals for drug trafficking as such he would not been eligible for promotion for ten years.” After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the petitioner's name was rightly excluded from the select list B-1. The view taken is perfectly justified and is in consonance with the provisions of Proviso to Rule 13.7(12), wherein it is clearly provided that if an official is undergoing punishment, his name shall not be included in the promotion list B-1. Argument of counsel for the petitioner that in the face of Sub-Rule 10 of Rule 13 of the Punjab Police Rules, petitioner's name cannot be excluded from the list B-1, is liable to be rejected. The above said provision makes it very clear C.W.P. No. 11637 of 2007 -5- that in case an officer has undergone some punishment, then some marks will be deducted from his total score, while preparing merit list. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( K.C. Puri ) 9.5.2008. Judge chug