Civil Writ Petition No. 4558 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4558 of 1992 Date of Decision: March 09, 2009 Raj Kumar Patwari ......... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .......... Respondents 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Shri J.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner from the date his juniors were promoted. As per petitioner, he joined as Patwari on 24.05.1955 but 02.09.1958 was wrongly reflected as his date of joining. The petitioner was placed at serial No.8 but the candidates at serial Nos. 10, 11 and 13, namely, Ravinder Nath, Gurdev Singh and Harbhajan Singh respectively, were promoted to the post of Kanungo in the month of February, 1990 ignoring Civil Writ Petition No. 4558 of 1992 [2] the petitioner. Aggrieved against non promotion of the petitioner, the writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. In reply, it has been pointed out that confidential reports of the petitioner for the year 1985-86 and 1986-87 were not up to the mark. The penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and also 25% cut on the remaining subsistence allowance was imposed vide order dated 1.7.1987 by the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 1.3.1988. In revision, the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, modified the order of punishment and awarded stoppage of one increment of the petitioner without cumulative effect vide order dated 21.07.1992. It was, thus, alleged that in view of the above facts and the service record, the petitioner was ignored and his juniors were promoted. The Division Bench of this Court stayed further promotion vide order dated September 07, 1992. An application for vacation of stay ( CM No.4594 of 1994 ) was filed. In reply to the said application, the petitioner alleged that adverse entry in his annual confidential report for the year 1985-86 has been expunged. A communication to this effect has been appended as Annexure P-15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that adverse remarks having been expunged, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted from the date his juniors were promoted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and do not find any merit in the writ petition. The adverse remarks of the year 1985-86 were expunged vide communication Annexure P-15. However, the adverse remarks for the year 1986-87 have not been expunged. Apart from such Civil Writ Petition No. 4558 of 1992 [3] expunction of remarks, the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect has attained finality. The said facts are sufficient to ignore the petitioner for promotion. Thus, the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Dismissed. March 09, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE