CWP-406-20 IN TH 217 Deepak Talw State of Hary CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution order in the 11.12.2018 ( promotion on the date of pr arrears with writ in the 31.10.2013 ( 1 2020 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o k Talwar VERSUS f Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Raman B. Garg with Mr. M Singh, Advocates for the petition Mr. Saurav Girdhar, AAG, State Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advo **** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has bee tution of India with a prayer for issu in the nature of certiorari for quash 018 (Annexure P-29) with further di tion on the posts of Superintending En e of promotion of his juniors with all c with interest @18% per annum. Fur the nature of certiorari for quash 013 (Annexure P-22) imposing penal NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-406-2020(O&M) Date of Decision: January 14, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS ...Responden E HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Mayank Garg and Mr. Navdeep etitioner. , State-Haryana. , Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. as been filed under Article 226 of the or issuance of an appropriate writ or quashing the impugned order dated ther directions to grant the petitioner ing Engineer and Chief Engineer from th all consequential benefits including m. Further praying for issuance of a quashing the impugned letter dated penalty of censure passed under the itioner ondents vdeep to 4. of the rit or dated tioner r from luding e of a dated er the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 provisions of 1952 being il 2. petitioner wa 20.08.1974 i subsequently 20.08.1974 v petitioner wa Engineer, vid 22.01.1992 (A to the post of seeking regu date he start ground of his and precede 13.12.1990 ( charge of th petitioner’s r petitioner alo Engineer w.e orders were i for the post 28.07.1997 (A junior to th 2 2020 ons of Punjab Civil Services Rules ( eing illegal and without sanction of law Learned counsel for the petition ner was appointed as a Sub-Divisiona 974 in the Haryana State Agricultu uently appointed as a permanent 974 vide order dated 23.11.1976 (A ner was entrusted with the duties of a er, vide order dated 24.01.1979 (An 992 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner w ost of Superintending Engineer. The p g regular promotion to the post of Sup e started discharging the responsibil of his excellent performance, seniori recedent of the respondent-Board, 990 (Annexure P-3), vide which he of the post of Superintending Eng ner’s request was considered, and it ner along with one Sh. P.S. Rawat er w.e.f. 13.12.1990 and 28.02.1990 re were issued. Thereafter, the primary c post of Superintending Engineer wa 997 (Annexure P-7). In the meantime to the petitioner, was promoted to ules (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, of law. etitioner, inter alia, contends that the isional Officer on an ad hoc basis on ricultural Marketing Board and was nent Sub-Divisional Officer w.e.f. 976 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the s of a higher post, namely Executive 9 (Annexure P-2). Vide order dated ner was conferred regular promotion . The petitioner made a representation of Superintending Engineer from the onsibilities of the said post, on the seniority, and the established practice oard, in pursuance of order dated ich he was entrusted with the duty g Engineer. Consequent thereto, the and it was decided to promote the awat to the post of Superintending 990 respectively; however, no formal ary charge entrusted to the petitioner eer was withdrawn vide order dated antime, one Sh. Prem Singh, who was ted to the post of Superintending Rules, at the sis on d was w.e.f. r, the cutive dated otion tation m the n the actice dated duty o, the te the nding ormal itioner dated o was nding PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 Engineer on despite the fa Board, howe the petitione deprive him The responde Court in CW Agricultural (Annexure P 2.1 junior to th Superintendin was further p issued a grad petitioner, Sh shown at Sr. a final grada vide letter d seniority list vide letter da Prem Singh, 3, 4, and 5 re filing CWP departmental 3 2020 er on an ad hoc basis vide order dat the fact that he was facing disciplinar however, failed to decide the departm titioner within a reasonable time, fo e him of promotion to the higher po spondent-Board also failed to act upo in CWP-1677-1998, titled Deepak ural Marketing Board and another ure P-10). In the meanwhile, the respon to the petitioner, namely Sh. Vi ntending Engineer vide order dated 17 rther promoted to the post of Chief E a gradation list of Executive Engineers ner, Sh. Prem Singh, Sh. S.K. Goel at Sr. Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 respectivel gradation list of Executive Engineer etter dated 24.03.1989 (Annexure ty list was issued vide letter dated 17 tter dated 09.04.2001 (Annexure P- ingh, Sh. S.K. Goel, and Sh. Vijay Pa nd 5 respectively. The petitioner there CWP-5721-2005 seeking promoti ental inquiries, as the petitioner was er dated 04.01.1997 (Annexure P-8), iplinary proceedings. The respondent departmental inquiry initiated against me, for obvious reasons, namely to her post of Superintending Engineer. ct upon the directions issued by this pak Talwar versus Haryana State ther, vide order dated 05.02.1998 respondent-Board promoted another h. Vijay Parkash, to the post of ted 17.09.1999 (Annexure P-11), who hief Engineer. The respondent-Board gineers, wherein Sh. D.R. Kapoor, the . Goel, and Sh. Vijay Parkash were ectively. After considering objections, gineers as on 01.12.1988 was issued xure P-13). Thereafter, a tentative ated 17.10.2000, which was finalized -15), wherein the petitioner, Sh. jay Parkash were placed at Sr. Nos. 2, r thereafter approached this Court by romotion and finalization of the r was due to retire on 13.11.2006. In 8), ndent- gainst ely to ineer. y this tate .1998 nother st of ), who Board or, the were tions, issued tative alized r, Sh. os. 2, urt by f the 06. In PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 the meantime junior of the Engineer w.e dated 27.07.2 On the same Engineer wit order dated 2 promoted as again subjec (Annexure P filing COCP petitioner fo inquiries. Ou 01.11.1987 w censured in 01.11.1987 a recovery of respect of th said order w 22.05.2007 (A 2.2 respondent N of the charg committee h 4 2020 antime, the respondent-Board conferr of the petitioner, Sh. Prem Singh, er w.e.f. 04.01.1997, subject to the c 7.07.2005, after dropping the departm same day, Sh. Prem Singh was furthe er with immediate effect, subject to ated 27.07.2005 (Annexure P-17). T ted as Chief Engineer with retrospe subject to the claim of his seniors, ure P-18). Feeling aggrieved, the peti COCP-98-2006, pursuant to which th ner for personal hearing on 12.07.2 es. Out of the aforesaid five inqu 987 was withdrawn vide order dated ed in two departmental inquiries init 987 and 06.07.1988, vide separate ry of Rs.1,32,500/- was imposed vi t of the fourth pending charge-sheet d der was later set aside by the appel 007 (Annexure P-19), holding the peti Thereafter, the petitioner w dent No.4, i.e. the Administrative Com charge-sheet dated 25.03.1983, de ttee had no jurisdiction, as the disc onferred regular promotion upon the ingh, to the post of Superintending the claim of his seniors, vide order epartmental inquiry for major penalty. further promoted to the post of Chief ect to the claim of his seniors, vide 17). Thereafter, Sh. Prem Singh was trospective effect w.e.f. 04.08.2000, eniors, vide order dated 15.06.2007 e petitioner approached this Court by hich the respondent-Board called the 12.07.2006 in all five departmental inquiries, one charge-sheet dated dated 09.08.2006. The petitioner was es initiated vide charge-sheets dated parate orders dated 09.08.2006. A sed vide order dated 09.08.2006 in sheet dated 07.10.1996; however, the appellate authority vide order dated he petitioner innocent. er was compulsorily retired by e Committee of the Board, in respect 83, despite the fact that the said e disciplinary powers vested in the on the nding order nalty. Chief , vide h was .2000, .2007 urt by ed the ental dated r was dated 06. A 06 in r, the dated d by espect said in the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 Board of D Marketing Bo order dated 1 order vide or No.4 was no competent au 2.3 similarly situ Sh. Vijay Par order dated 0 highlights th Prem Singh, Thereafter, th petitioner vid petitioner sub date of comp Engineer and While one o 28.07.2014 (A to 30.11.2006 3. 05.08.2014 s Chief Engine promotion w 5 2020 of Directors under Rule 15 of th ting Board Service Rules, 1974. The s ated 11.08.2006; however, the appell ide order dated 03.06.2011 (Annexure as not competent and directing that t tent authority. In the meantime, the respon ly situated person, Sh. D.R. Kapoor, jay Parkash and Sh. Prem Singh, with ated 08.09.2011 (Annexure P-21). Le hts that the petitioner is senior to bo ingh, and that Sh. D.R. Kapoor had ter, the appellate authority awarded th ner vide order dated 31.10.2013 (Ann ner submitted representations seeking compulsory retirement, and promotio er and Chief Engineer from the dat one of the petitioner’s prayers wa 014 (Annexure P-23), granting salary 1.2006, the remaining reliefs were den The petitioner thereafter submitt 014 seeking promotion to the posts o Engineer from the dates his juniors w tion w.e.f. 13.12.1990. Learned cou of the Haryana State Agricultural . The said penalty was conveyed vide appellate authority set aside the said nexure P-20), holding that respondent that the matter be placed before the respondent-Board promoted another poor, along with his juniors, namely , with all consequential benefits vide 1). Learned counsel for the petitioner r to both Sh. Vijay Parkash and Sh. r had already retired on 31.05.2004. rded the punishment of censure to the (Annexure P-22). Consequently, the eking salary from 11.08.2006, i.e. the motion to the posts of Superintending he dates his juniors were promoted. ers was accepted vide order dated salary for the period from 11.08.2006 re denied. ubmitted another representation dated posts of Superintending Engineer and niors were promoted, besides regular ed counsel further relies upon the ltural d vide e said ndent re the nother amely s vide itioner d Sh. .2004. to the ly, the .e. the nding oted. dated .2006 dated er and egular n the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 instructions/p P-26) issued censure or w submitted tha account of p Services (Pun receiving adv P-24), the re representation was disposed respondent- eight weeks. hearing, and Department appointing an the Haryana However, the the petitioner No.4, which l 3.1 was withdraw facts before (Annexure P dated 03.06. 6 2020 tions/policies dated 18.11.1971 and 19 issued by the Government of Haryan e or warning are not grounds for den ted that, as per the said policies, prom t of pendency of a charge-sheet unde es (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 19 ng advice from the concerned departm the respondent-Board failed to take ntation. Consequently, the petitioner sposed of vide order dated 20.04.2018 -Board to consider the petitioner eeks. In purported compliance, the pe , and the Board of Directors decided t ment of the State Government. T ting and competent authority for grant aryana State Agricultural Marketing er, the impugned order dated 11.12.2 itioner’s claim for retrospective promo hich lacked competence. Consequently, the petitioner f ithdrawn on 31.05.2019 with liberty before the competent authority, nam ure P-30). Pursuant thereto, the peti 03.06.2019 (Annexure P-31) to the and 19.07.1973 (Annexures P-25 and aryana, contending that penalties of for denial of promotion. It is further , promotions are not denied merely on t under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil les, 1987 for minor penalties. Despite department on 15.07.2017 (Annexure take any action on the petitioner’s itioner filed CWP-9576-2018, which 4.2018 (Annexure P-27), directing the itioner’s claim for promotion within the petitioner was granted a personal cided to seek advice from the Finance ent. The respondent-Board is the r granting promotions under Rule 6 of keting Board Service Rules, 1974. 1.12.2018 (Annexure P-29) rejecting promotion was passed by respondent oner filed CWP-15686-2019, which iberty to file afresh after placing all y, namely the Board of Directors e petitioner issued a demand notice to the Board of Directors seeking 5 and ies of urther ely on Civil espite exure oner’s which ng the within rsonal nance s the e 6 of 1974. ecting ndent which ng all ectors notice eking PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 promotion to the dates hi respectively, However, res Directors, rej of ACRs a (Annexures P been passed Haryana (An and object. 4. passed by Ho and another, this Court in Service Com 2665-1987, S {1997 (3) SC 5. submits that retirement, he judgment of H and others However, he counsel for th 7 2020 tion to the posts of Superintending Eng tes his juniors were promoted, i.e tively, along with all consequentia er, respondent No.2, despite placing rs, rejected the petitioner’s claim on Rs and past disciplinary proceed ures P-22 and P-29) are thus arbitrar assed without considering the binding a (Annexures P-25 and P-26) and by Learned counsel for the petitio by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopi C ther, 2006(9) SCC 694 and judgmen urt in CWP-14526-1998, Chaman La Commission, decided on 23.11.1998 87, Sunderjit Singh Vs. State of P ) SCT 744}. On the other hand, learned cou s that the petitioner has no vested rig ent, he cannot be granted retrospectiv nt of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed ers Versus Dr. Amal Satpathi a er, he could not controvert upon th l for the petitioner to support his case. ng Engineer and Chief Engineer from d, i.e. 04.01.1997 and 04.08.2000 uential benefits including interest. acing the matter before the Board of im on the grounds of non-availability roceedings. The impugned orders rbitrary, unjust, and perverse, having inding policies of the Government of nd by misinterpreting their true intent petitioner relies upon the judgment opi Chand Vishnoi Vs State of UP dgment passed by Division Bench of n Lal Lakhanpal Vs. Union Public 1.1998 {1999(1) SCT 175} and CWP of Punjab, decided on 11.04.1997 d counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 ted right for promotion and after his pective promotion and relies upon the assed in Government of West Bengal thi and others, 2024 INSC 906 on the judgments relied by learned se. r from .2000 terest. ard of ability orders aving ent of intent gment UP nch of blic WP- .1997 2 to 4 ter his on the ngal 906. arned PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 6. judgment rel applicable to involved in promotion to 7. respondents a 8. petitioner. Fi after a gap o with date of which may re Sr. No. Char date 1. 25.03 2. 01.11 3 01.11 4 26.02 5 06.07 6 01.03 7 20.03 8 03.05 9 23.07 10 21.12 8 2020 In rebuttal, learned counsel for nt relied upon by learned counsel fo ble to the present case and is clearl ed in the aforesaid judgment does tion to juniors of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel dents and gone through the case file. It transpires that 14 charge-shee ner. First charge sheet was issued on 25 gap of 23 years i.e. on 11.08.2006. ate of their concluding finds mentione may reads as under:- harge Sheet ate Outcome 5.03.1983 Compulsory retirement Aforesaid penalty compulsory retirement was aside by Appel Authority remanded reconsideration Censure 1.11.1987 Censure 1.11.1987 Withdrawn 6.02.1988 Warning 6.07.1988 Censure 1.03.1989 Exonerated 0.03.1989 Exonerated 3.05.1989 Exonerated 3.07.1991 Censure 1.12.1992 Dropped el for the petitioner submits that the sel for respondents No. 2 to 4 is not clearly distinguishable, as the issue does not pertain to the grant of ounsel for the petitioner as well as the file. sheets have been issued against the d on 25.03.1983 which was concluded 2006. The details of the charge-sheet ntioned in para 32 of the paper book Date of order 11.08.2006 nalty of as set ppellate and for 03.06.2011 31.10.2013 09.08.2006 25.07.2006 06.05.2002 09.08.2006 03.04.2002 23.04.2001 18.10.2002 03.05.2002 13.08.2004 at the is not issue nt of as the the luded sheet book PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 11 06.10 12 06.10 13 30.11 14 21.12 13.12.1990 (A higher post o withdrawn on person, name along with th he was facing Prem Singh, ad hoc basi continued to demonstrate pending for 9 2020 6.10.1993 Dropped (as a matter of f there is no s charge sheet and information has b wrongly supplied the respondent bo under RTI and same was correc orally w approached to ge copy of the afores charge sheet order from respondent Board) 6.10.1993 Recovery Rs.1,32,500/- Aforesaid penalty recovery was aside by appel authority 0.11.1998 Dropped 1.12.1998 Warning The respondent-Board, in pu 990 (Annexure P-3), entrusted the pe post of Superintending Engineer. How awn on 28.07.1997 (Annexure P-7). I , namely Sh. P.S. Rawat, who was ith the petitioner, was not divested of facing departmental proceedings. Eve ngh, who was promoted to the post basis on 04.01.1997, was facing ed to enjoy the benefit of promotion. strate any justification for keeping g for more than two decades witho of fact, o such and this as been lied by t board nd the orrected when o get a foresaid t and the ard). 20.08.2004 of 09.08.2006 nalty of as set ppellate 24.07.2007 23.04.2001 11.05.2006 in pursuance of the order dated the petitioner with duty charge of the r. However, the said duty charge was 7). In contrast, a similarly situated was entrusted with the higher post sted of the charge despite the fact that s. Even a junior to the petitioner, Sh. e post of Superintending Engineer on acing departmental proceedings but otion. The respondents have failed to eeping the disciplinary proceedings without concluding them within a dated of the e was tuated r post ct that r, Sh. eer on s but iled to edings thin a PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 reasonable ti Court on tw petition, and disciplinary p attitude of re pending clear petitioner tha the petitione petitioner ha Surprisingly, D.R. Kapoor Sh. Vijay Par order dated 0 senior to them was also gran whereas in th None of the c of a major warnings wer 9. the following I. 10 2020 able time. The petitioner was constra on two occasions by filing a writ p n, and it was only after the filing of inary proceedings against the petitione e of respondents No.2 to 4 in keepin g clearly vindicates the specific stand t ner that the proceedings were deliber titioner his rightful promotion. Adm ner have earned promotions up to y, the respondent-Board promoted apoor, to the post of Chief Engineer jay Parkash and Sh. Prem Singh, with dated 08.09.2011 (Annexure P-21), to them. The said Sh. D.R. Kapoor, w so granted promotion with retrospectiv s in the case of the petitioner, a differ f the charge-sheets against the petition ajor penalty; rather, eight charge- gs were issued in the remaining six. This court while delving into th lowing issues. Whether promotion can be legiti non-availability of Annual Conf not, whether the competent auth pro-rata assessment of the availa onstrained to approach this Hon’ble writ petition as well as a contempt ing of the contempt petition that the titioner were concluded. The indolent keeping the disciplinary proceedings stand taken by learned counsel for the eliberately prolonged solely to deny . Admittedly, persons junior to the up to the post of Chief Engineer. moted a similarly situated person, Sh. ineer at par with his juniors, namely , with all consequential benefits vide 21), even though the petitioner was poor, who had retired on 31.05.2004, spective effect along with all benefits, different yardstick has been adopted. etitioner culminated in the imposition -sheets were dropped and only into the present case shall deal with e legitimately denied on the ground of l Confidential Reports (ACRs), and if nt authority is obliged to undertake a available record ? on’ble tempt at the dolent dings or the deny to the ineer. n, Sh. amely s vide r was .2004, nefits, ted. sition only l with und of and if take a PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 II. III. IV. ISSUE I 10. Gupta Vs St following obs 11 2020 Whether the disciplinary authori the penalty of censure upon an e whether post-retirement action i matters ? Whether a minor penalty, such bar to promotion under the government instructions ? Whether an employee, exonerat penalty after prolonged discipli notional promotion with retrosp juniors were promoted, along wi A Full Bench of this Court in s State of Haryana and others, de ing observations as under:- “16. Although it was decided t for the last 10 years preceding considered yet they were not co case of all candidates. As is ob case of Ram Chander it was con in the case of Ashok Kumar Va the case of K.K. Gupta for 5 yea Chander Sharma for 8 years o Kumar Pandov for 9 years 8 m Singh Gupta for 8 years 5 mon behalf of the Commission that o available on record were taken uthority retains jurisdiction to impose n an employee after his retirement, or ction is confined solely to pensionary , such as censure, constitutes a legal r the governing service rules and onerated or subjected only to a minor isciplinary proceedings, is entitled to retrospective effect from the date his ong with all attendant benefits ? rt in CWP-8855-1988, Kamal Kumar , decided on 03.08.1990, made the ded that annual confidential reports ing to the notional date were to be ot considered for uniform period in is obvious from the result sheets in s considered for 9 years one month, r Vashisth for 6 years 4 months, in years 6 months, in the case of Ram ars one month, in the case of Raj 8 months and in the case of Dalip months. It has been contended on hat only annual confidential reports ken into consideration. This cannot mpose ent, or ionary legal s and minor led to te his mar de the orts o be d in ts in nth, s, in Ram Raj alip on orts nnot PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 11. employee’s promotion, p remarks and down by the ACRs are no reporting aut superior offi prejudice the guarantee of authority is 12 2020 be treated to be fair on its part. returns that a candidate could reports for so many years disadvantage. Annual confiden by the candidates and in fact officers on their own. If for an were unable or failed to record candidate and he cannot be p account. Even otherwise in opportunity guaranteed by Art India, the Commission was confidential reports of all the ca on the basis of available report should have worked out average thereafter evaluated in terms of not done so, did not provide candidates required to The absence of Annual Confi ee’s service record cannot be cited tion, particularly when the available s and reflect satisfactory or good perfo by the Full Bench of this Court in are not “earned” by an employee b ng authorities to record. Any failure r officers in maintaining these rec ice the career prospects of the employe tee of equality of opportunity und ity is obligated to adopt a unifor part. The contention in the various ould not earn annual confidential ears cannot hold good to his fidential reports are never earned fact they are recorded by superior or any reason the superior officers cord the same, it was no fault of the be put to a disadvantage on that in the interest of equality of Article 16 of the Constitution of was required to spread annual e candidates over 10 years pro-rata ports i.e., for the same period or it rage in case of each candidate and s of marks. The Commission having vide equal opportunity to all the to be considered by it.” (emphasis added) Confidential Reports (ACRs) in an e cited as a valid ground to deny ailable ACRs are free from adverse d performance. As authoritatively laid rt in Kamal Kumar Gupta (supra) yee but are a statutory duty of the failure or lapse on the part of the se records cannot be permitted to mployee. To uphold the constitutional y under Article 16, the competent uniform and equitable method of ious ntial his rned rior icers f the that of n of nual rata or it and ving the it.” in an deny verse ly laid ra), of the of the ed to tional petent od of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 assessment. W undertake a p average perf promotion so be arbitrary, u ISSUE - II 12. Kapoor Vs observations 13 2020 ent. Where ACRs for certain periods ake a pro-rata evaluation based on the e performance for the entire period tion solely due to administrative omis trary, unfair, and in violation of the pri A Coordinate Bench of this C Vs State of Haryana, 2003(3) S ations as under:- 9. I have thoughtfully consi learned counsel for the parties petition deserves to be partially of the Haryana Civil Services ( 1987 (for brevity the Rules) imposed on a Government empl pre-supposes the existence of servant. Rule 4 of the Rules read 4. Penalties- (1)- The good and sufficient reaso be imposed on a Governm i) Warning with a (character roll) ii) censure iii) Withholding of prom iv) Recovery from pay pecuniary loss caused by to the Central Governmen company and associatio whether incorporated o eriods are missing, the authority must on the existing records or compute an period under consideration. Denying e omissions in record-keeping would the principles of natural justice. this Court in CWP-4536-1992, KC 3) SCT 934, made the following onsidered the submissions made by rties and am of the view that this ially accepted because under Rule 4 es (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, les) specified penalties could be employee. The aforementioned Rule e of relationship of master and read as under:- The following penalties may, for easons and as hereinafter provided, ernment employee namely:- a copy in the personal file promotion pay of the whole or part of any d by negligence or breach of orders, ment or a State Government or to a iation or a body of individuals d or not, which is wholly or must ute an nying would KC owing e by this le 4 ules, be Rule and for ded, file any ers, to a uals or PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 13. Supreme Cou 2018(2) SCC “10. Discip 1979 R major of the specifi can be service Regula employ 14 2020 substantially owned or co to a local authority set up the legislature of a State a v) withholding of cumulative effect. Under sub-heading minor pena punishment which could be imp and sufficient reasons. Admitte has retired on 31.11.1989 a punishment of censure has bee other words, the relationship of to an end for all practical contemplated by Civil Service imposition of cut in pension un the order dated 25/29.5.1990 ca law and is thus liable to be set a Reliance can also be placed on t e Court in UCO Bank and others Vs. SCC (L&S) 630. The relevant extrac 0. A reading of the plain la iscipline and Appeal Regulations a 79 Regulations makes it clear that ajor or minor can be imposed only the Bank. This necessarily impli ecified in Regulation 4 of the Disc n be imposed on an officer emplo rvice, though in terms of Regul gulations, the disciplinary proceedi ployee before his retirement can b or controlled by the Government or et up by an Act of Parliament or of ate and of increments of pay without penalties censure is described as a e imposed on an employee for good mittedly, in this case, the petitioner 89 and the order imposing the been passed on 25/29.5.1990. In ip of master and servant had come ical purposes. The only method vice Rules, Volume 11, Part 11 is n under sub Rule 2.2(b). Therefore, 0 cannot be sustained in the eyes of set aside.” (emphasis added) d on the judgment passed by Hon’ble s Vs. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade, extract thereof be reads as under:- in language of Regulation 4 of the ns and Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the that any of the penalties, whether only on a serving officer employee implies that none of the penalties Discipline and Appeal Regulations mployee after his retirement from egulation 20(3)(iii) of the 1979 eedings initiated against an officer an be continued and final order is t or r of hout s a ood oner the In ome thod 1 is fore, es of dded) on’ble ade, f the f the ther oyee lties ions from 979 ficer er is PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 passed benefit final o receive langua discipl punish from a which pensio whole depart grave or act proviso depart service Regula continu of depa retirem before that ev employ none o Regula an off supera dated Respon ex faci commi 15 2020 ssed and further that such officer em nefits till the conclusion of disciplin al order. The only exception to this ceive his own contribution to CPF. H nguage of these Regulations from w sciplinary authority has the pow nishment on retired officer employ m a conjoint reading of Regulation ich empowers the competent autho nsion or a part thereof and order ole or part of any pecuniary los partmental or judicial proceedings, ave misconduct or negligence or cri acts done fraudulently during the oviso to Regulation 48 contains a fi partmental proceedings are institut rvice, the same shall be deemed gulations and continued and conc ntinued in service. The third proviso departmental or judicial proceeding tirement in respect of an event whic fore such institution. The sum and su at even though a departmental inqu ployee before his retirement can co ne of the substantive penalties spe gulations, which include dismissal f officer employee after his retire perannuation. Therefore, we have n ted 12.10.2004 passed by the discip spondent from service, who had sup facie illegal and without jurisdicti mmit any error by setting aside the s er employee is not entitled to retiral iplinary proceedings and passing of this is that the officer is entitled to F. However, there is nothing in the m which it can be inferred that the power to impose a substantive ployee. This becomes more explicit ation 48 of the Pension Regulations uthority to withhold or withdraw a rder recovery from pension of the loss caused to the bank if in a ngs, the pensioner is found guilty of r criminal breach of trust or forgery the period of his service. Second s a fiction and lays down that if the stituted while the employee was in med to be proceedings under the concluded as if the employee had viso imposes a bar on the initiation dings against an employee after his which took place more than 4 years nd substance of these Regulations is inquiry instituted against an officer n continue even after his retirement, specified in Regulation 4 of 1979 sal from service, can be imposed on etirement on attaining the age of ve no hesitation to hold that order isciplinary authority dismissing the d superannuated on 31.12.1993 was diction and the High Court did not the same. tiral g of d to the t the tive licit ions w a the in a ty of gery ond f the in the had tion r his ears ns is ficer ent, 979 d on e of rder the was not PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 11. relatio Appell on 31. inquiry be con he is e 12. preced (supra Union Pensio observ Court, agreed commi would words, will be would delinqu two ye from 3 dismis becam 13. this Co 16 2020 We may also observe lationship between the Respond ppellant No. 1- Bank had come to an 31.12.1993 i.e., the date of supe quiry initiated against the Responde continued for a limited purpose fo is entitled for full pensionary benef This view is amply ecedents. In High Court of Punja upra), this Court referred to an earl nion of India (1990) 4 SCC 314 [LQ nsion Rules applicable to the emp served: It is seen that the learn urt, on the administrative side, whi reed with the enquiry officers mmitted embezzlement and mention uld come into immediate effect from rds, he appears to have intended to ll be operative from the date of the uld appear that the Chief Justic linquent had already been retired o years period of extended service m 31-8-1982. Therefore, the order smissal from the date of its order came superfluous as he was no long In UCO Bank and Anr. v is Court referred to the relevant Reg The Respondent, theref superannuate, only a proceedi of his pension under the Pe been initiated against the Resp serve that master and servant pondent and the employer i.e., to an end for all practical purposes superannuation. The departmental ondent before his retirement could se for determining whether or not benefits and gratuity. ly supported by other judicial unjab & Haryana v. Amrik Singh earlier judgment in D.V. Kapoor v. [LQ/SC/1990/413] , Rule 2.2 of the employees of the High Court and learned Chief Justice of the High while passing the order of dismissal ers finding that the Respondent ntioned that the order of dismissal from the date of the order. In other ed to say that the order of dismissal f the order of the dismissal. But it ustice was not apprised that the ired from service on completion of rvice of re-employment with effect rder of giving effect to the order of rder was of no consequence and longer in service as on that date. nr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (supra), Regulations and observed: erefore, having been allowed to eeding, inter alia, for withholding Pension Regulations could have Respondent. Discipline and Appeal vant i.e., oses ntal ould not icial ingh r v. f the and igh issal dent issal ther issal ut it the n of ffect r of and ra), d to ding have peal PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 14. minor ones s master-servan ceases, and t substantive p Kapoor (sup unsustainable Supreme Cou proceedings confined to d the only perm the relevant p penalty like c of employme 17 2020 Regulations were, thus not attra sheet, the enquiry report and th by the disciplinary authority an be held to be illegal and without An order of dismissal or passed only when an employee i employment, the question of term would not arise unless there behalf. As Regulation 20 is no Respondent, we have no other o proceeding initiated against the law.” The jurisdiction to impose di ones such as censure, is predicated o servant relationship. Upon an emplo , and the disciplinary authority is div tive penalties under the service rules (supra), the penalty of censure ainable in law. This principle is firm e Court in UCO Bank (supra), which dings initiated before retirement may ed to determining entitlement to pensi y permissible action is the withholdin evant pension regulations, and not the like censure. Thus, any order of cen loyment is void ab initio for lack of ju attracted. Consequently the charge nd the orders of punishment passed ty and the appellate authority must hout jurisdiction. al or removal from service can be yee is in service. If a person is not in f terminating his services ordinarily ere exists a specific Rule in that s not applicable in the case of the er option but to hold that the entire t the Respondent became vitiated in (emphasis added) ose disciplinary penalties, including ated on the existence of a subsisting mployee's retirement, this relationship is divested of the power to impose e rules. As unequivocally held in KC nsure imposed after retirement is is firmly reinforced by the Hon’ble which clarifies that while disciplinary t may continue, their scope is strictly pensionary benefits. Post-retirement, holding or reduction of pension under not the imposition of any substantive of censure passed after the severance k of jurisdiction. rge- ssed must n be ot in arily that the ntire d in dded) luding isting nship mpose KC nt is on’ble linary trictly ment, under antive erance PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 ISSUE - III 15. Santosh Ku Limited, 199 18 2020 III A Division Bench of this Court Kumari Aneja Vs Haryana See 1999(3) SCT 64, made the following “5. We have heard learned c through the records of the case adjudication in the present case the making of warning to an emp his/her promotion? We would opinion on the issue but inas covered by the Government le 71/32468 dated 13.11.1971, (pa give our independent finding on Relevant para 2(a)(iv) of the thus:— “Where on a preliminary a prima facie case has been est employee and he has been se enquiry officer has been ap departmental enquiry under Services (Punishment and A comparable rule, applicable concerned, then he should not has been completed and he has which a charge-sheet has been response to charge sheet has no if an enquiry officer has been ap should be kept pending until d whether a regular departmenta be held. If it is decided that su then the Government employee s Court in CWP-14924-1998, titled as Seeds Development Corporation llowing observations as under:- ed counsel for the parties and gone case. The only question that needs case. In our view, is as to whether employee can result in withholding ould have given our independent inasmuch as the matter herein is t letter bearing No. 6034-2-GS-1 , (para 2(a)(iv), there is no need to g on the issue involved in this case. the letter referred to above reads nary investigation of the complaint, n established against a Government n served a charge sheet and an n appointed to hold a regular Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil d Appeal) Rules, 1952, or any ble to the Government employee not be promoted until the enquiry has been exonerated. In a case in been served but the explanation in s not been received (and as a result n appointed), the case of promotion ntil decision has been taken as to ental enquiry, should or should not at such an enquiry should be held, yee should not be promoted until he led as tion one eeds ther ding dent n is 1- to ase. eads aint, ent an ular Civil any oyee uiry e in n in esult tion s to not eld, il he PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 19 2020 has been exonerated in the exonerated of all the charges penalty or is only administere copy on the personal file or no fit for promotion in every retrospective effect, i.e, from th promotion and an official junio no vacancy was available fo temporary post should be cre Finance Department and the should be reverted, if necessary. 6. The averment to the followed in cases where an offic enquiry comes for promotion is referred to above, have been ma corresponding para 8 of the w been given to the averments m which would amount to admissi A perusal of para 2(d)(iv) of th demonstrate that if an employee in every respect he/she should effect i.e, from the date on whic and an official junior to him/h provided in the para aforesaid t for the period in question, temp consultation with the Finance D promoted official should be reve as Enquiry Officer is concerned but it was ultimately for the Pun quantum of punishment. Conced warning was given to the government instructions, refe entitled for promotion from r the enquiry. If he is ultimately ges without the imposition of any stered a warning (whether with a not), then he should if otherwise very respect be promoted with m the date on which he was due for junior to him was promoted. In case e for the period in question, a created in consultation with the the junior post promoted official sary. o the effect that the procedure to be official whose conduct is subject to n is provided in Government letter, n made in para 8 of the petition. In he written statement, no reply has ts made in para 8 of the petition ission of the contents of said para. of the letter aforesaid would clearly loyee is otherwise fit for promotion uld be promoted with retrospective which he/she was due for promotion im/her was promoted. It is further aid that if no vacancy was available emporary post should be created in ce Department and the Junior most reverted, if necessary. True, insofar rned, he returned a finding of guilt Punishing Authority to consider the ncededly, as mentioned above, only the petitioner. In view of the referred to above, petitioner is m retrospective date i.e from the ately any th a wise with e for case , a the icial o be ct to tter, n. In has ition ara. arly tion ctive tion ther able d in most ofar guilt r the only the r is the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 16. Division Ben Union of Ind reads as unde 17. Division Ben State of Hary under:- 20 2020 date when persons junior to point has been raised in this c projected by the respondents. Reliance can also be placed o n Bench of this Court in CWP-4750 f India and others, 2011(2) SCT 27. s under:- “8. In the definition of ‘W assigned is admonish and li assigned to Censure is repriman expression admonish, it is clea danger or error or warn as of the aforesaid technical mean Censure and Admonish would interchangeably used in commo ‘Censure’ may stand on the sam that for the purposes of prom taken into account then ‘Censu account in the case of the appl the view of the Tribunal dese accordingly.” Reliance can also be placed o n Bench of this Court in CWP-12237 Haryana, 1992(1) SCT 696. The rele 3. After hearing learned co that action of the respondents to the petitioner is not supported b to her were promoted. No other his case nor any defence has been (Emphasis supplied) aced on the judgment passed by a 750-2010, titled as P.S. Sachdev Vs T 27. The relevant extract thereof be ‘Warning’ one of the meanings d likewise one of the meaning imand. When we see the meaning of clear that it is to caution against s of something to be avoided. Thus, eaning of expressions ‘Warning’ ould show that these are virtually mon parlance then ‘Warning’ and e same footing. Therefore, it is held promotion if warning is not to be ensure’ shall also not be taken into applicant-petitioner. To that extent deserves to be modified. Ordered (Emphasis supplied) aced on the judgment passed by a 2237-1991, titled as Mange Ram Vs he relevant extract thereof be reads as d counsel for the parties, we find ts to deny promotional pay scale to ed by the rules or the instructions. It ther been lied) by a v Vs eof be ings ning g of inst hus, ing’ ally and held o be into tent ered lied) by a Vs ads as find le to s. It PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 18. penalty such promotion. A mandates tha exonerated o must be grant were promot Sachdev(sup functionally i not disqualif 21 2020 is not disputed that for the y administered to the petitioner effected from him, on account punishment awarded to the pe increment without future eff instructions issued by the State specifically providing that cen not major punishment would promotion and these punishme part of the total record. In view warnings which were administe were stated at the relevant time question of placing the petitio grade was to be considered consideration. Likewise the othe be taken into consideration. Oth petitioner did not debar him f grade.” A consistent line of judicial aut such as censure or warning does tion. As held in Santosh Kumari Ane tes that if an employee, facing a depa ated or administered only a warning/c e granted promotion with retrospective promoted. This principle is reinforc (supra) , which clarifies that the te nally interchangeable in common par qualifying, purpose. Consequently, i he years 1977-79, warnings were ner and some recovery was also unt of shortage as stated. Another e petitioner was stoppage of one effect. Annexure R-1 are the tate Government on July 19, 1973 censure or warnings which were ould not be considered to stop shments are merely to be taken as view of these instructions, thus the inistered in 1977 or in 1979 which time i.e. January 1, 1986 when the titioner in the higher promotional dered, could not be taken into other punishment awarded was not . Otherwise, the latest record of the im for being placed in the higher (Emphasis supplied) ial authority, establishes that a minor does not constitute a legal bar to Aneja (supra), government policy a departmental enquiry, is ultimately rning/censure, and is otherwise fit, he pective effect from the date his juniors einforced by the reasoning in P.S. the terms 'warning' and 'censure' are on parlance and serve an admonitory, ntly, if a warning is not to impede ere also ther one the 973 were stop n as the hich the onal into not f the gher lied) minor ar to policy ately fit, he uniors P.S. re' are itory, pede PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 promotion, c explicitly up stipulates tha considered fo be recorded a deny an other ISSUE - IV 19. Chand Vishn through Justi “4. post w certain been e promo we.f. 1 record in the such th junior Collec 20. Chaman Lal 23.11.1998 22 2020 tion, censure cannot do so either. Fur tly upholds the Government's instruc tes that censure or warnings, not bein ered for withholding promotion. Thus rded as part of the service record and n otherwise eligible employee his right IV A Two Judge bench of the Ho ishnoi Vs State of UP and anothe h Justice B.N. Agrawal observed as un Undisputedly, the promotion to st was refused in the year 1985 on t rtain adverse entries in his service en expunged and in the year 1989 omotion. The appellant’s juniors .f. 11.07.1985. In view of the fact th cords of the appellant have been exp the year 1985 promotion was wron ch the State should have granted hi niors were granted promotion i.e. p llector w.e.f. 11.07.1985.” Further a Division Bench of th Lal Lakhanpal Vs. Union Public S 998 {1999(1) SCT 175}, made the foll 9. It was then urged that t from service. Even this canno consider his claim. The right to the year 1994-95. The respond claim. They had not discharge them by law. The wrong done remedied by one method viz. dir er. Furthermore, Mange Ram(supra) instruction dated 19.07.1973, which t being major penalties, are not to be . Thus, minor penalties are merely to rd and cannot be used to perpetually is rightful career progression. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopi other, 2006(9) SCC 694, speaking as under:- on to the appellant for the higher n the sole ground that there were rvice record and the same having 1989 he was found fit and granted ors have been granted promotion ct that adverse entries in the service n expunged, we are of the view that rongly refused to the appellant. As ed him promotion w.e.f. the day his i.e. promotion to the post of Deputy (Emphasis supplied) of this Court in CWP-14526-1998, lic Service Commission, decided on he following observations as under:- at the petitioner has since retired nnot be a ground for refusing to ht to be considered had accrued in ondents had failed to consider his arged their duty as enjoined upon done to the petitioner can only be . directing the respondents to do the pra) which to be ely to tually opi aking gher were ving nted tion vice that As y his puty lied) 998, ed on tired g to d in his pon y be the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 21. judgment of Prabhakar S 22. who was oth grounds of p exoneration, cannot be su notional prom juniors were benefits. This Court and th arbitrariness, unlawfully w does not ext promotion. 23. principles. Fi ground to den is required. 23 2020 needful on the hypothesis that h time. If the petitioner is found select list and if his turn for a available post in the promotion have been promoted with Consequential reliefs shall ensu Reliance in this regard may als nt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i ar Sadashiv Karvade, 2018(2) SCC The legal position is firmly esta as otherwise due for promotion, is s of pending disciplinary proceedings ation, dropping of charges, or only be sustained. In such circumstance al promotion with full retrospective eff were promoted, along with all at s. This principle, fortified by the judg and this Court, rests on the founda riness, and the restoration of rightfu ully withheld. The mere fact of an em ot extinguish this accrued right to r The petitioner's claim for promo les. First, missing ACRs due to admin deny promotion; rather, a pro-rata ired. Second, censure cannot be im at he was in service at the relevant ound suitable for inclusion in the for appointment comes against an otion quota, he will be deemed to ith effect from the due date. ensure in accordance with the rules. (Emphasis supplied) ay also be placed on a Two Bench ourt in UCO Bank and others Vs. SCC (L&S) 630. ly established that when an employee, on, is wrongly denied the same on edings which ultimately culminate in only a minor penalty, such denial stances, the employee is entitled to ive effect from the date his immediate all attendant service and monetary e judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme oundational tenets of fairness, non rightful career progression that was an employee's subsequent retirement t to retrospective consideration and promotion is governed by four settled administrative lapses cannot used as a rata assessment of available records be imposed after retirement, as the vant the t an d to ate. les. Bench Vs. loyee, e on e in denial led to ediate netary preme , non- t was ement n and settled d as a cords as the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-406-20 employer-em permissible. constitute a b due to procee entitled to no benefits, a rig 24. impugned ord The responde date on whic Engineer and granted to Sh the impugne same is barre is set aside. 25. the date of re 26. disposed of. January 14 P.C 24 2020 employee relationship ceases; sible. Third, censure is a minor, adm ute a bar to promotion. Fourth, when proceedings ending in exoneration or to notional promotion from the date s, a right unaffected by subsequent reti In view of the above, the prese ned order dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure spondents are directed to consider the c n which his juniors were promoted er and Chief Engineer, with all conse to Sh. D.R. Kapoor. So far as the cha pugned order dated 31.10.2013 (Ann s barred in the absence of any enablin The same shall be done within e of receiving the certified copy of this Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. ry 14, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : ses; only pensionary actions are r, admonitory penalty and does not when promotion is wrongly withheld ion or minor penalty, the employee is e date juniors were promoted, with all ent retirement. present petition is allowed, and the nexure P-29) is quashed and set aside. er the claim of the petitioner w.e.f. the oted to the posts of Superintending consequential benefits, as have been the challenge in the present petition to (Annexure P-22) is concerned, the nabling provision and consequently it ithin a period of three months from of this order. pplication(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No s are es not thheld yee is ith all d the aside. .f. the nding been tion to d, the ntly it from stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.30 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document