ARVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the promotion order of respondent No. 6 on the ground that respondent No. 6 was, though, junior to the petitioner, but had been promoted to the post of Mandi Supervisor by ignoring the case of the petitioner.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Auction Recorder with the respondents on 17.11.1987. Respondent No. 6, on the other hand, was appointed as a Clerk with the Market Committee, Dasuya on 17.6.1987 and was promoted to the post of Auction Recorder on 2.5.1992. However, the Market Committee had promoted respondent No. 6 as Mandi Supervisor by ignoring the case of the petitioner, although, petitioner was much senior to respondent No. 6. Petitioner had been falsely involved in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act ' for short), registered at Police Station, Sector -34, Chandigarh. Petitioner remained under suspension from 13.5.2013 to 24.2.2014. No departmental proceedings were held against the petitioner. Petitioner has now joined back his duties after 24.2.2014.

(3.) PETITIONER had joined as Auction Recorder with the respondent -Market Committee on 17.11.1987 whereas respondent No. 6 -Sharanjit Singh joined the Market Committee as a Clerk on 17.6.1987 and was promoted as Auction Recorder on 2.5.1992. Admittedly, FIR No. 326 dated 6.10.2005 was registered against the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act at Police Station Sector -34, Chandigarh. Petitioner remained in police custody for more than 24 hours and, consequently, remained under suspension from 13.5.2013 to 24.2.2014. Although, the order whereby respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Mandi Supervisor, has not been placed on record but from Annexure P -1, seniority list, it is evident that respondent No. 6 was promoted as Mandi Supervisor on 1.1.2014. At the relevant time, petitioner was under suspension on account of his involvement in the criminal case. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that the criminal case registered against the petitioner is still pending. In these circumstances, as the petitioner was under suspension on account of his involvement in the criminal case, he could not be considered for promotion in January 2014.