Civil Revision No. 3806 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3806 of 2008 Date of decision : 2.3.2010 Mahavir Sharan Petitioner Versus The Punjab State and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. Facts, about which there is no controversy, in the first instance:- The petitioner herein was denied promotion with effect from 10.7.1989 when his juniors Subhash Chander Nanda, Ajaib Singh, Dhani Ram and Ajmer Singh were promoted to the post of Assistant. He filed a civil suit which was decreed by the learned Civil Court, vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.1999. The decree mandated the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner herein afresh for promotion with effect from the date his juniors aforementioned were promoted. The competent authority, on reconsideration of the matter, directed the promotion of the petitioner herein with effect from 12.11.1998 i.e. date with effect from which he was found Civil Revision No. 3806 of 2008 -2- *** eligible and suitable for promotion, vide order dated 14.2.2000. For holding the petitioner herein eligible for promotion with effect from 12.11.1998, the competent authority was swayed by the fact that there were departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner herein during the period he was denied promotion. The following factual state is apparent from the record:- The issue under challenge is governed by the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab vide notification No.7/84/98-5PPI/4426 dated 17.4.2000 (Annexure R-1) and Annexure R-2, a copy of notification No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.4.1989 issued by the Government of India. It would be apparent from a perusal thereof that the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the DPC”) has to “assess the suitability of the Officers for promotion on the basis of their service record and with particular reference to the CRs for 5 preceding years.” Insofar as the department proceedings issued against the petitioner herein vide No.13097-13100 E-4 dated 26.10.1987 are concerned, those were dropped vide order dated 18.8.1988 (Annexure P-8). Though those proceedings were initiated afresh thereafter but it cannot be denied that there has to be an inference that the proceedings issued vide No.13097-13100 E-4 dated 26.10.1987 could not impede the consideration of the petitioner herein for promotion. In an act of resistance, the learned State counsel argued that besides the departmental proceedings dropped vide order dated Civil Revision No. 3806 of 2008 -3- *** 18.8.1988 (Annexure P-8), there were other adverse ACRs as well which impeded the grant of promotion to the petitioner herein. In that context, it was pointed out that there were adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner herein for the following period:- 1.4.1983 to 6.7.1983 1.4.1984 to 13.9.1984 and 20.7.1990 to 31.3.1991. As the three employees junior to the petitioner had been promoted with effect from 10.7.1989, the suitability or otherwise of the petitioner herein for promotion has to be considered as on that date. In the light of the instructions Annexures R-1 and R-2, the service record of the petitioner herein for the preceding five years had to be seen. If counted rearwards, the record upto the year 1984 has to be considered. In that view of things, the adverse entries for the period 1.4.1983 to 6.7.1983 are irrelevant. Likewise, adverse ACR entries for the period 20.7.1990 to 31.3.1991 are also irrelevant. Insofar as the adverse ACR entries at item no.2 are concerned, the observations made by the competent authority were as under:- “Defects in anyHas tendency to remain absent for which he was warned verbally on more than one occasion.” It is that entry proceedings qua which had been dropped vide order Annexure P-8. In that view of things, there was nothing adverse against Civil Revision No. 3806 of 2008 -4- *** the petitioner herein as on 10.7.1989 which, as per the departmental instructions Annexure R/1 and R/2, could eclipse his right of promotion. The orders granted by the competent authority at a point of time subsequent to 10.7.1989 could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of denying promotion to the petitioner with effect from 10.7.1989. In that view of things, the petition shall stand allowed. The petitioner herein is held entitled to promotion with effect from 10.7.1989 the date his juniors were promoted. The order denying promotion to him with effect from 10.7.1989 and granting promotion only with effect from 12.11.1998 shall stand invalidated. Disposed of accordingly. March 02, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE