HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16518 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.09.2011 **** Jagir Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . 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 Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. Dipak Sibal, Advocate for respondents No.4&5 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was a Senior Assistant in the office of District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Ludhiana, when he was charge-sheeted on the allegations like disobedience of the orders passed by senior officers or that he reached late in the office on one or two occasions. A regular enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer vide his report dated 30.10.2002 (Annexure P12) exonerated the petitioner of all the charges holding as follows:- “So, the documents reveal that the employee never tried to rigmarole the matter of having over the charge, neither disobeyed the orders of the officers. It does not prove at all as per records. Even then, inquiry report CWP No.16518 of 2008.doc - 2 – is submitted before the Hon’ble Director Ayurveda Punjab for further necessary action.” (2). The disciplinary authority without confronting the petitioner with any ‘Note of Disagreement’, passed an order dated 11th February/5th March, 2003 (Annexure P13), contrary to the enquiry report, observing that “the charges of not giving of charge on one pretext or other and disobedience of the orders of the officers are proved……”. However, taking a lenient view, “strict warning” was issued to the petitioner to remain careful in future. The afore- stated order (Annexure P13) was further modified on 28.03.2005 (Annexure P14) directing that the word “strict warning” shall be read as “warning”. (3). The petitioner was subsequently denied promotion to the post of Superintendent Gr-II on the basis of the above- stated minor punishment when his juniors, namely, respondents No.4&5 were promoted. (4). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. (5). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit defending both the actions, namely, imposition of punishment of ‘warning’ as well as denial of promotion to the petitioner as Superintendent Gr-II. (6). Two questions do arise for consideration, namely, (i) whether the penalty of ‘warning’ imposed on the petitioner 2 CWP No.16518 of 2008.doc - 3 – is in consonance with law; and (ii) whether the petitioner could be denied promotion on the basis of punishment of ‘warning’. (7). With reference to the first issue, suffice it to mention that the disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, to be concluded strictly in accordance with the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (in short, ‘the Rules’). Rule 9(2) of the Rules is relevant in the present context and it reads as follows:- “9. Action on the inquiry report. (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) The punishing authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority or any article of charge, record its reasons for each disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.” (Emphasis applied) (8). It was thus imperative upon the disciplinary authority to record its reasons for each disagreement and convey the same to the delinquent employee. No such procedure was followed by the Director, Ayurveda while passing the impugned order dated 11th February/5th March, 2003 3 CWP No.16518 of 2008.doc - 4 – (Annexure P13) which is totally cryptic with no reason whatsoever. (9). The impugned order (Annexure P13) censuring the petitioner having been passed without following the prescribed procedure thus cannot sustain in law and is hereby quashed. (10). Since the only so-called adverse material relied upon to deny promotion to the petitioner as Superintendent Gr-II vanishes, it is imperative upon the respondents to re- consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Superintendent Gr-II w.e.f. the date when his juniors were promoted. (11). Ordered accordingly. (12). It may, however, be mentioned here that the punishment of ‘Censure’ is not a valid ground to withhold promotion or increment(s) of an official as expressly laid down in the Punjab Government Instructions dated 10.12.1993 (Annexure P20), the relevant part whereof reads as follows:- “…..While considering such cases it is to be ensured that no departmental proceedings are pending. Because the punishment of Censure is the part of the service record and going through the service record of the employee it is to be considered whether employee is to be considered for grant of promotion/proficiency 4 CWP No.16518 of 2008.doc - 5 – increment and in case that upto date service record of the official is good/satisfaction and no department proceedings are pending against him and no such entry is made in the service record but as he was awarded punishment of Censure and the official is not considered for promotion/increment. In such circumstances the case of the official for promotion/increment is not being debarred and in such cases the award of Censure may not be any hindrance for promotion/increment. In the above mentioned cases, if there is no such cases then the case of the concerned official be considered after verifying the service record and as such there is no necessity to fix the period after the award of Censure.” (13). The second question stands answered in favour of the petitioner. (14). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.02.2008 (Annexure P19) denying promotion to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be re-considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Gr-II with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits, 5 CWP No.16518 of 2008.doc - 6 – within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (15). Dasti . 15.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 6