JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking the quashing of the order of promotion, dated 30.10.1995, whereby two Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers (Surinder Singh Parmar and Ram Bilas Singla) have been promoted as Excise and Taxation Officers after reducing the punishment of "stoppage of three annual grade increments" to "warning ". The petitioner has also sought a direction to the State of Haryana (respondents No.1) to promote him the date from which person, juniors to him, have been promoted (30.10.1995).

(2.) The petitioner is working as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer in the Excise and Taxation Department of the Haryana Government. He had joined the service as Excise and Taxation Inspector on 5.9.1972 and was promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, vide order dated 8.10.1986. He was shown at Serial No.78 in the seniority list. Respondent No. 5, Sadhu Singh Gill, has been shown in the seniority list at Serial No. 88; respondent No. 4, Ram Bilas Singla, at Serial No. 132; and respondent No.3, Surinder Singh Parmar, at Serial No. 133. The name of respondent No. 2, Maman Singh Gupta, did not appear in that list. In the tentative seniority list circulated, vide letter dated 17.6.1995, the aforesaid respondents were again shown as junior to the petitioner. It has been alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 3, Surinder Singh Parmar, and respondent No. 4, Ram Bilas Singla, had been awarded punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect, vide order dated 27.4.1988 by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner but that punishment has subsequently been reduced in appeal to a minor punishment of warning. This is stated to have been so done in order to benefit the said respondents so as to give them promotion. The petitioner has asserted that, since he was likely to be promoted, the State Government has, by reducing the punishment awarded to respondents Nos.3 and 4 adversely affected the petitioner's right of promotion. It is alleged that the undue favour has been shown to Surinder Singh Parmar and Ram Bilas Singla. Major Punishment has been reduced to minor punishment after the process of promotion had started. The petitioner had been promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer much before the promotion given to the said respondents. This is how the petitioner was senior to them and was so shown in the tentative seniority list. The promotion order dated 30.10.1995, whereby Surinder Singh Parmar and Ram Bilas Singla have been promoted, has been challenged on the ground that the earlier seniority list stands changed to the deteriment of the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier also filed a petition (C.W.P.No.15612 of 1995) but that was dismissed as premature, vide order dated 31.10.1995. The petitioner has, therefore, claimed in the present writ petition the setting aside of the promotion order, whereby Surinder Singh Parmar and Ram Bilas Singla have been promoted as Excise and Taxation Officers.

(3.) Respondent No.1 (State of Haryana) has, in its reply, asserted that Maman Singh Gupta, Surinder Singh Parmar and Ram Bilas Singla were senior to the petitioner as Excise and Taxation Inspectors and, since they had been earlier ignored at the time of promotion on account of departmental enquires pending under rule 7 against them, they were shown junior to the petitioner. The petitioner had been promoted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer on ad hoc basis, vide order dated 8.10.1986, and thereafter, he was shown senior to the respondents in the tentative seniority list. After the major punishment awarded to the respondents, Surinder Singh Parmar and Ram Bilas Singla, was reduced to minor punishment by the Appellate Authority, they were found eligible for promotion and were consequently promoted with retrospective effect from 7.6.1985 and 8.10.1986 respectively. Maman Singh Gupta was also promoted with retrospective effect from 8.3.1982. It is also pointed out by the respondents that a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner but subsequently the proceedings were withdrawn, vide order dated 5.9.1995. The respondents have denied the charge that any undue advantage has been given to the respondents while the major punishment was reduced to minor punishment. The respondents, Maman Singh Gupta, Surinder Singh Parmar and Ram Bilas Singla, have been given promotion retrospectively against the promotion quota. It has been asserted by the respondent (State of Haryana) that no person, junior to the petitioner, has been promoted as Excise and Taxation Officer.