IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 233 CWP-24891-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 20.07.2026 Ramesh Kumar … PeƟƟoner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Saurabh Dala, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner for issuance of a writ in the nature of CerƟorari, quashing the impugned speaking order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure P-5), and/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus direcƟng the respondents to fix the seniority of the peƟƟoner above junior employees and grant promoƟon from the day the peƟƟoner became eligible or when the juniors were granted promoƟon (i.e. 07.03.2021), and to grant the service benefits due thereupon with interest and arrears. 2. It is inter alia submiƩed by ld. counsel for the peƟƟoner that the peƟƟoner was appointed as a Warder on 16.09.1992. On 20.01.2020, peƟƟoner was granted 3rd ACP from back date, that is w.e.f. 01.07.2017. On 26.12.2018, peƟƟoner was promoted to the post of Head Warder. Vide leƩer dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure P-1), the respondents had sought a list of the Head NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24891-2024 (O&M) -2-CNR NO:PHHC011294862024 Warders who were eligible for promoƟon to post of Sub Assistant Superintendent (Jails) for preparaƟon of Seniority List. Accordingly, the respondents had prepared a Seniority List (Annexure P-2) in which the name of the peƟƟoner was not included; whereas names of persons junior to the peƟƟoner were included. In pursuance to the above, persons junior to the peƟƟoner came to be promoted vide promoƟon leƩer dated 07.03.2021 (Annexure P-3). ThereaŌer, the peƟƟoner had reƟred on 31.05.2022. 3. Ld. counsel submits that it is undisputed that persons junior to the peƟƟoner had been promoted. However, for no reason, the peƟƟoner, bearing Belt No. 119, was kept bereŌ of the benefit of promoƟon, while others with Belt Nos. 120, 123, 124, and even 130 were promoted. Accordingly, on 20.06.2021, peƟƟoner had filed an applicaƟon for correcƟon of the Seniority List and for promoƟon. Pursuant thereto, peƟƟoner was called for hearing on 31.12.2021, but no acƟon was taken thereupon. 4. Accordingly, peƟƟoner had once again moved a representaƟon dated 24.03.2022, poinƟng out that the peƟƟoner fulfilled all the requisite qualificaƟons for promoƟon and seniority and had been wrongly kept out. 5. Ld. Counsel further submits that as on 07.03.2021, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the peƟƟoner. That is, on the date of promoƟon 07.03.2021 or even before that, there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against the peƟƟoner. As such, peƟƟoner was enƟtled to be considered for promoƟon to the post of Sub Assistant Superintendent. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24891-2024 (O&M) -3-CNR NO:PHHC011294862024 6. It is submiƩed that the peƟƟoner was not even granted the benefit of the 3rd ACP in Ɵme and was granted the same only on 01.07.2017, whereas, as per rules, the same was due to the peƟƟoner on 01.07.2016. 7. Ld. counsel submits that the peƟƟoner has been a Warder since 1992 and Head Warder since 2018. Thus, peƟƟoner was fully eligible and deserved to be promoted along with other similar and junior employees who were promoted. 8. Accordingly, peƟƟoner had filed CWP-26265-2022 before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure P-4), direcƟng the respondents to decide the representaƟon filed by the peƟƟoner. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) has been passed. Ld. counsel further contends that the effect of all the punishments was over well before the Ɵme of consideraƟon for promoƟon and no inquiry or disciplinary proceedings or order of punishment or punishment was in operaƟon on the date of consideraƟon for promoƟon and the peƟƟoner wrongly leŌ out of the consideraƟon zone. It is contended that the peƟƟoner cannot be kept lower in seniority and rank when the selecƟon was one and the peƟƟoner was senior on the date of selecƟon and no inquiry or disciplinary proceedings or order of punishment or punishment was in operaƟon on the date of consideraƟon for promoƟon and the peƟƟoner deserves to be promoted from the date when he became eligible and when the junior was promoted. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24891-2024 (O&M) -4-CNR NO:PHHC011294862024 9. Accordingly, he prays that the present writ peƟƟon be allowed and the impugned order be set aside and the seniority of the peƟƟoner be fixed from the due date. He further prays that the peƟƟoner be granted promoƟon from 07.03.2021, the date on which persons junior to the peƟƟoner were promoted; with further direcƟon to the respondents to grant the 3rd ACP to the peƟƟoner from 01.07.2016. 10. Per contra ld. State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions of the peƟƟoner and contended that peƟƟoner has withheld material facts. It is pointed out that promoƟon had been rightly denied to the peƟƟoner as, on six occasions, six different charge sheets had been issued against the peƟƟoner, in which he had been awarded major punishments. As such, peƟƟoner was not eligible for promoƟon. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the present writ peƟƟon. 11. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoner. 12. By way of the present writ peƟƟon, the peƟƟoner has prayed for seniority and promoƟon from the due date viz 7.3.2021; as well as for granƟng the 3rd ACP from 1.7.2016; and for seƫng aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure P-5), whereby his claim to the aforesaid has been rejected by the respondents. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24891-2024 (O&M) -5-CNR NO:PHHC011294862024 However, there is no merit to the case of the peƟƟoner, as the record reveals that the peƟƟoner has been repeatedly charged sheeted and repeatedly awarded major punishments on as many as six occasions. As such, as per the relevant rules, peƟƟoner is not enƟtled to promoƟon. The said facts have been comprehensively enumerated by the respondents in their wriƩen statement dated 07.07.2025 have categorically and unequivocally averred as follows:- “3. That as per service record of the peƟƟoner, the following punishments had been awarded to the peƟƟoner since his joining, in various departmental proceedings:- Sr. No. Departmental proceedings iniƟated for derelicƟon in duƟes Punishments awarded 1. Chargesheeted vide leƩer No. 289-90 dated 17.03.2003 for minor penalty under Rule 11 of the Punjab Jail Department ExecuƟve (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1943 read with Rule 15 of the Punjab Jail Department State Service (Class-III ExecuƟve) Rules, 1963 due to wilful absence from duty from 7/8.12.2002 to 31.01.2003 (56 days) Vide order No. 33-35 dated 12.02.2004, a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment awarded. without future effect was awarded. Currency of the punishment remained from September 2004 to August 2005 2. Placed under 20.06.2003 suspension from to 05.09.2003 and chargesheeted vide leƩer No. 856 dated 14.08.2003 for major penalty under Rule 11 of the Punjab Jail Department ExecuƟve Staff for (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1943 read with Rule 15 of the Punjab Jail Department State Service (Class-III ExecuƟve) Rules, 1963 consuming liquor with the released prisoners from the jail and to quarrel with his senior officer Sh. Subhash Chander, Assistant Superintendent Jail. Vide order No. 482-84 dated 08.05.2012, a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without future effect was awarded. Currency of the punishment remained from July 2012 to June 2014. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24891-2024 (O&M) -6-CNR NO:PHHC011294862024 3. 3. Chargesheeted vide leƩer No. 335 dated 19.02.2013 for minor penalty under Rule 11 of the Punjab Jail Department ExecuƟve Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1943 read with Rule 15 of the Punjab Jail Department State Service (Class-III ExecuƟve) Rules, 1963 due to wilful absence from duty from 16.10.2004 to 12.04.2005 for 181 days Vide order No. 4646-48 dated 22.08.2013, a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without future effect awarded. Currency of the punishment remained from July 2014 to June 2015. 4. Chargesheeted vide leƩer No. 6124 dated 19.11.2013 for minor penalty under Rule 11 of the Punjab Jail Department ExecuƟve Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1943 read with Rule 15 of the Puniab Jail (Department State Service) (Class-III ExecuƟve) Rules, 1963 due to wilful absence from duty from 02.12.2009 to 02.01.2010 for 51 days Vide order No. 2244-45 dated 16.05.2014, a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without future effect was awarded. Currency of the punishment remained from July 2015 to June 2017. 5. Chargesheeted vide leƩer No. 245 dated 27.05.2010 for minor penalty under Rule 11 of the Punjab Jail Department ExecuƟve Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1943 read with Rule 15 of the Punjab Jail Department State Service (Class-III ExecuƟve) Rules, 1963 due to wilful absence from duty from 01.02.2010 to 03.03.2010 for 34 days Vide order No. 479-81 dated 08.05.2012, a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without future effect was awarded. Currency of the punishment remained from July 2017 to June 2018 6. Chargesheeted vide leƩer No. 317 dated 29.03.2012 for minor penalty under Rule 11 of the Punjab Jail Department ExecuƟve Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1943 read with Rule 15 of the Punjab Jail Department State Service (Class-III ExecuƟve) Rules, 1963 for not assisƟng the jail officials to stop the quarrel between the prisoners on 11.02.2012 in the jail. Vide order No. 1477-79 dated 16.04.2013 a punishment of wriƩen warning was awarded and to remain careful in future. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24891-2024 (O&M) -7-CNR NO:PHHC011294862024 Copies of the punishment order dated 12.02.2004, 08.05.2012, 22.08.2013, 16.05.2014, 08.05.2012 and 16.04.2013 are annexed as Annexure R-1 to R-6. 4. That as per Government instrucƟons dated 18.11.1971, "no employee should be promoted unƟl the enquiry has been completed against an employee against whom chargesheet for major penalty has been issued and he has been exonerated. In a case in which a charge-sheet has been served but the explanaƟon in response to the chargesheet has not been received (and as a result if any Enquiry Officer has not been appointed), the case of promoƟon should be kept pending unƟl decision has been taken as to whether a regular departmental enquiry should or should not be held. If it is decided that such an enquiry should be held, then the Govt. employee should not be promoted unƟl he has been exonerated in the enquiry. If he is ulƟmately exonerated of all the charges without the imposiƟon of any penalty or is only administered a warning (whether with a copy on the personal file or not) then he should, if otherwise fit for promoƟon in every respect, be promoted with retrospecƟve effect ie. from the date on which he was due for promoƟon and an official junior to him was promoted." Copy of the Govt. instrucƟon dated 18.11.1971 is annexed as Annexure R-7. Further, as per the Government instrucƟons dated 31.05.2006, по promoƟon should be allowed to any employee during the currency of punishment of his grade increments. The operaƟve part of the Government instrucƟons dated 31.05.2006 is reproduced as under:- “2. In a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu Versus Thiru K. S. Murugesan & others (C.A. Nos.3432-33 of 1995) decided on 28.02.1995, reported as 1995(3)RSJ 271, the Hon'ble Court has held that: - “… … … ...Unless the period of punishment gets expired by efflux of Ɵme, the claim for consideraƟon during the said period cannot be NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24891-2024 (O&M) -8-CNR NO:PHHC011294862024 taken up. Otherwise, it would amount to retrospecƟve promoƟon which is impermissible under the Rules and it would be a premium on misconduct. Doctrine of double jeopardy has no applicaƟon and non- consideraƟon is neither violaƟve of ArƟcle 21 nor ArƟcle 14 read with ArƟcle 16 of the ConsƟtuƟon......…” 3. The State Government has considered the maƩer in the light of aforesaid judgment and it has been decided that no promoƟon should be allowed to any employee during the currency of punishment of stoppage of his grade increment(s)." Copy of the Govt. instrucƟon dated 31.05.2006 is annexed as Annexure R- 8.” 13. The respondents in their said reply further enumerated in comprehensive detail that the peƟƟoner was considered by various promoƟon panels between the years 2008 to 2017. However, due to pending disciplinary proceedings for major penalty and currency of punishments, he was not found eligible for promoƟon as per the prevailing government instrucƟons. 14. Details of each case from the year 2008 Ɵll 2017 have been duly menƟoned in para No. 5 of the reply. From the above facts, it is clear that as per government InstrucƟons dated 18.11.1971, peƟƟoner is not enƟtled for back- date promoƟon w.e.f. 08.12.2008. 15. It is also perƟnent to note that the peƟƟoner has not disclosed these facts in the present writ peƟƟon. Even in the previous writ peƟƟon, the peƟƟoner had concealed material facts of the punishment of stoppage of his seven increments awarded to him on account of currency of punishment. It is NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24891-2024 (O&M) -9-CNR NO:PHHC011294862024 for this reason that the peƟƟoner was not found eligible for promoƟon in various promoƟon panels by the then Departmental PromoƟon CommiƩee. 16. Record also reveals that the peƟƟoner has been duly granted an opportunity of personal hearing on 27.12.2022. Moreover, the impugned order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) is a speaking order wherein all requisite details are menƟoned. 17. In the facts and circumstances of this case, reference may be made to the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-10446- 2011 Ɵtled as Subhash Gakhar vs. State of Haryana & others decided on 16.10.2012 (Annexure R-9) which reads as under:- "I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parƟes and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case. The claim, as made by the peƟƟoner in the present writ peƟƟon, cannot be accepted. PeƟƟoner earned his annual increment on 01.07.2009 and the next annual increment due to the peƟƟoner was on 01.07.2010. During this period, punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulaƟve effect was imposed upon the peƟƟoner in the departmental proceedings iniƟated against him vide order dated 23.12.2009. The increment, which has already been granted to the peƟƟoner, could not be withdrawn and, therefore, the withholding of increment would start when the next increment would be due to the peƟƟoner i.e. 01.07.2010. The punishment would thus, become effecƟve from 01.07.2010 Ɵll the next increment would become due to the peƟƟoner i.e. 01.07.2011. The claim of the peƟƟoner that the punishment would come to an end on his NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24891-2024 (O&M) -10-CNR NO:PHHC011294862024 earning the increment on 01.07.2010, cannot be accepted as the increment cannot be withheld from a retrospecƟve date. The stand of the respondents thus, in the wriƩen statement, is fully jusƟfied and in accordance with law. As regards the claim of the peƟƟoner for promoƟon to the post of Deputy Superintendent, in the light of the fact that persons junior to him stood promoted on 31.07.2009 and, therefore, he should be granted the promoƟon from the said date, also cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings against the peƟƟoner under Rule 7 of the 1987 Rules were pending against the peƟƟoner on the said date and he could not have been promoted from the date his juniors have been promoted as he was not exonerated in the departmental proceedings. These proceedings culminated into imposiƟon of punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulaƟve effect, which disenƟtled him to promoƟon w.e.f. 31.07.2009. The claim of his promoƟon to the post of Deputy Superintendent could not be considered during the period he was in service as Ɵll the date of his reƟrement i.e. 31.05.2011, the punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulaƟve effect was in currency and the same would come to an end on 30.06.2011. Denial of the claim, as made by the peƟƟoner through his representaƟon dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure P-4) based upon the instrucƟons dated 31.05.2006, is in accordance with law." Hence, the present peƟƟon deserves to be dismissed on this score alone.” 17. Reference may also be made to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of State of Tamilnadu vs. Thiru K. S. Murugesan & others NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24891-2024 (O&M) -11-CNR NO:PHHC011294862024 reported as 1995 AIR SCW 1591, 1995 (3) SCC 273. The operaƟve part of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “It would thus be clear that when promoƟon is under consideraƟon, the previous record forms basis and when the promoƟon is on merit and ability, the currency of punishment based on previous record stands an impediment. Unless the period of punishment gets expired by efflux of Ɵme, the claim for consideraƟon during the said period cannot be taken up. Otherwise, it would amount to retrospecƟve promoƟon which is impressible under the Rules and it would be a premium on misconduct. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the doctrine of double jeopardy has no applicaƟon and non-consideraƟon is neither violaƟve of ArƟcle 21 nor ArƟcle 14 read with 16 of the ConsƟtuƟon." 18. Learned counsel for the peƟƟoner is unable to dispute the above- stated factual and legal posiƟon. Even no replicaƟon has been filed by the peƟƟoner controverƟng the above-stated facts. Thus, the present writ peƟƟon stands dismissed. 19. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 20.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh