VED PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What would be the effect of punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect on the promotion of an employee, is the question raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner pleads that his case would be required to be considered for promotion with his batch mates by taking in account the punishment awarded to see his suitability for promotion. The respondents, by relying on the amended instructions dated 31.5.2006 would justify the impugned order dated 16.3.2009 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner was informed that case shall remain closed and he can not be promoted. Besides challenging the denial of promotion, the petitioner has also questioned the instructions dated 31.5.2006, (Annexure P-5), which he claims, are liable to be quashed, being illegal.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Revenue Patwari in the year 1975 and is still in service. The petitioner complains that number of junior Revenue Patwaris shown as such in the seniority list have been promoted but the case of the petitioner not considered for promotion. This action is justified by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was facing an enquiry which at the time of consideration was in progress. On 14.8.2008, the petitioner served a legal notice and when the same was not being decided, he filed a writ petition before this Court, seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case and to decide his legal notice. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.12.2008 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the legal notice served by the petitioner. Subsequently, on the basis of enquiry finding, the petitioner was awarded a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 5.2.2009, which was communicated to the petitioner on 13.3.2009. Consequently the respondents have passed the impugned order, Annexure P-4, intimating that two annual increments shall remain closed with cumulative effect and he can not be promoted. The impugned order is justified on the basis of Government instructions No. 2/5/2006-2 dated 31.5.2006 through which earlier instructions dated 18.11.1971 and 19.7.1973 have been modified.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have erred in relying upon instructions, Annexure P-5, which, as per him, are against law. Perhaps the plea is that these are unjust. The validity of these instructions is, thus, questioned. The counsel would say that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered for promotion while taking into account the entire service record including the punishment and then his suitability judged. Reference is made to some instructions issued in the year 1973 (not placed on record), which provide that over all record should be seen for considering a person for promotion even if the employee is awarded punishment of stoppage of one or more grade increments, when his turn comes for promotion during the currency of the punishment. In this context, the counsel contends that the modification of these instructions done in the year 2006 through impugned instructions (Annexure P-5) are against law.