227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER SURINDER SINGH TAXAK AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. K. K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Surinder Singh Taxak, respondent No.1 in person. * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. The present LPA is preferred by the appellant order dated 22.11.2019 whereby the learned Single Bench has allowed CWP-6978-2016 filed by the respondent No.1 the impugned orders aside and the appellants seniority of respondent No.1 in the cadre of Deputy General Manager in terms of his entitlement, as per his seniority in the fe 2. The brief facts leading to filing of Writ Petition bearing CWP No.6978 of 2016 are that while respondent Manager / Assistant General Manager, dated 24.02.2009 under the Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations of 1971”). During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the meeting of the Senior Promotion Committee was held on 17.04.2009 for promotion IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER SINGH TAXAK AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. K. K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Surinder Singh Taxak, respondent No.1 in person. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The present LPA is preferred by the appellant order dated 22.11.2019 whereby the learned Single Bench has allowed 2016 filed by the respondent No.1 the impugned orders dated 07.08.2014, 16.10.2014 and 22.12.2015 were set the appellants (respondents therein) were seniority of respondent No.1 in the cadre of Deputy General Manager in terms of his entitlement, as per his seniority in the fe The brief facts leading to filing of Writ Petition bearing CWP No.6978 of 2016 are that while respondent Manager / Assistant General Manager, he dated 24.02.2009 under the Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations of 1971”). During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the meeting of Senior Promotion Committee was held on 17.04.2009 for promotion IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-374-2020(O&M) Date of Decision:5th of March, 2025 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ..…...Appellant (s) V/s. .....Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. K. K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Surinder Singh Taxak, respondent No.1 in person. The present LPA is preferred by the appellant-FCI assailing order dated 22.11.2019 whereby the learned Single Bench has allowed 2016 filed by the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner therein) and dated 07.08.2014, 16.10.2014 and 22.12.2015 were set (respondents therein) were directed to revise the seniority of respondent No.1 in the cadre of Deputy General Manager in terms of his entitlement, as per his seniority in the feeder cadre. The brief facts leading to filing of Writ Petition bearing CWP No.6978 of 2016 are that while respondent No.1 was posted as Area he was issued with charge-sheet dated 24.02.2009 under the Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations of 1971”). During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the meeting of Senior Promotion Committee was held on 17.04.2009 for promotion The brief facts leading to filing of Writ Petition bearing Suresh Kumar 2025.04.05 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-374-2020 from the post of Area Manager / Assistant General Manager to the post of Deputy General Manager (General), Regulation 10 read with Appendix respondent No.1 charge-sheet, therefore, the recommendation No.1 was kept in a sealed cover and Deputy General Ma 3. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 has challenged the consequent seniority list his name appe his representation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Bench has erred in interpreting the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jankiraman and Others awarded respondent No.1 the Deputy General 07.08.2014, 16.10.2014 and 22.12.2015 and prays for setting aside the impugned judgement passed by the learned Single Bench. 5. Per contra he was senior to been denied promotion solely on the ground that pending against him and subsequently as 02.02.2010 issued by the D 2020 (O&M) from the post of Area Manager / Assistant General Manager to the post of Deputy General Manager (General), which is a selection post under Regulation 10 read with Appendix-1 of the Regulation respondent No.1 was facing the disciplinary sheet, therefore, the recommendation was kept in a sealed cover and private respondents Deputy General Manager (General) against the panel year 2009. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the consequent seniority list his name appeared against the panel year 2011 his representation. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Bench has erred in interpreting the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Jankiraman and Others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court awarded respondent No.1 the relief of revise eneral Manager and has wrongly set aside orders dated 07.08.2014, 16.10.2014 and 22.12.2015 and prays for setting aside the judgement passed by the learned Single Bench. Per contra, respondent No.1 appearing in person submits that he was senior to all the private respondents in the cadre of AGM and had been denied promotion solely on the ground that gainst him and he was further promoted on subsequently as Deputy General Manager. issued by the Department of Personnel and Training from the post of Area Manager / Assistant General Manager to the post of which is a selection post under of the Regulations of 1971. Since, the was facing the disciplinary proceedings in the aforesaid sheet, therefore, the recommendations of the DPC qua respondent private respondents were promoted as (General) against the panel year 2009. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent challenged the consequent seniority list dated 16.01.2014, wherein ared against the panel year 2011 and the orders of rejection of Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Bench has erred in interpreting the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Union of India and Others Vs. K.V. eme Court 2010, and has wrongly relief of revised seniority in the cadre of the and has wrongly set aside orders dated 07.08.2014, 16.10.2014 and 22.12.2015 and prays for setting aside the judgement passed by the learned Single Bench. , respondent No.1 appearing in person submits that the private respondents in the cadre of AGM and had been denied promotion solely on the ground that a charge-sheet was was further promoted on 11.09.2013 As per the instructions dated epartment of Personnel and Training, Clause (vi) Suresh Kumar 2025.04.05 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-374-2020 to Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Appeal) Rules, 1965, “(vi) 6. The Fundamental Rules were amended vide notific 27.10.2013 and new Rule 29 (2) was substituted “ 7. Respondent No.1 provisions, he was entitled to regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post o 2020 (O&M) to Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Appeal) Rules, 1965, was substituted, which reads as under: (vi) reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant during such specified period time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with direction as to whether or not, on promotion on the expiry of the specified period: (a) The period of reduction to time scale of pay, grade, post or service shall operate to postpone future increments of his pay, and if so (b) The Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher time scale of pay, grade, post or service.” The Fundamental Rules were amended vide notific 27.10.2013 and new Rule 29 (2) was substituted “(2) If a Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower scale, the authority ordering the reduction shall specify (a) The period for which the reduction shall be effective; and (b) Whether, on restoration, the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and, if so, to what extent. (c) The Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post on his restoration to the service, grade or post from which he was reduced. Respondent No.1, therefore, submits that as per the aforesaid provisions, he was entitled to regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post on his restoration to the service from which it was to Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and which reads as under:- reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a bar to the promotion of the servant during such specified period to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with direction as to whether or not, on promotion on the expiry of the specified period:- The period of reduction to time scale of pay, post or service shall operate to postpone future increments of his pay, and if so, to what The Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher time scale of pay, grade, The Fundamental Rules were amended vide notification dated 27.10.2013 and new Rule 29 (2) was substituted, which reads as under:- If a Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower scale, the authority ordering the reduction shall specify- The period for which the reduction shall be Whether, on restoration, the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and, if The Government servant shall regain his original the higher service, grade or post on his restoration to the service, grade or post from which he was reduced.” , therefore, submits that as per the aforesaid provisions, he was entitled to regain his original seniority in the higher the service from which it was Suresh Kumar 2025.04.05 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-374-2020 reduced. Since respondent No.1 was senior to others, he would be entitled to restoration once he is promoted to the rank of 8. We have considered the submission parties and carefully gone through the circular and amendments as noticed above and find that the interpretation taken by the learned Single Bench would go principally against the law as settled case of Union of India and Others (Supra). The said law as laid down was again followed by in the case of SCC 167. 9. While we notice that the learned Single the judgment Bench falls contrary to what has been observed by the apex Court. 10. We notice that respondent No.1 had been punished with a major punishment i.e. reducing of pay for a period of two years which were to operate prospectively postponing his future increments too was with cumulative effect. He would, therefore, permanently draw salary three increments less than his counterparts in the same pay scale. However, in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of of India and Another considered for 11. We find that respondent No.1 has been considered for promotion and has also been awarded promotion of Deputy General Manager 2020 (O&M) reduced. Since respondent No.1 was senior to others, he would be entitled to restoration once he is promoted to the rank of We have considered the submission parties and carefully gone through the circular and amendments as noticed above and find that the interpretation taken by the learned Single Bench would go principally against the law as settled Union of India and Others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Others . The said law as laid down was again followed by in the case of Union of India and Another While we notice that the learned Single the judgments as above, but the final view taken by the learned Single contrary to what has been observed by the apex Court. We notice that respondent No.1 had been punished with a major punishment i.e. reducing of his three increments in the present scale of pay for a period of two years which were to operate prospectively his future increments too, thus, the was with cumulative effect. He would, therefore, permanently draw salary increments less than his counterparts in the same pay scale. However, in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of of India and Another Vs. S. C. Parashar (Supra), he was entitled for considered for further promotion subsequently. We find that respondent No.1 has been considered for promotion and has also been awarded promotion Deputy General Manager, however, a question arises whether promotion reduced. Since respondent No.1 was senior to others, he would be entitled to restoration once he is promoted to the rank of Deputy General Manager. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the circular and amendments as noticed above and find that the interpretation taken by the learned Single Bench would go principally against the law as settled by the Supreme Court in the K.V. Jankiraman and Others . The said law as laid down was again followed by the Apex Court Vs. S. C. Parashar; 2006 (3) While we notice that the learned Single Bench has also noticed the final view taken by the learned Single contrary to what has been observed by the apex Court. We notice that respondent No.1 had been punished with a ree increments in the present scale of pay for a period of two years which were to operate prospectively , the reduction of three increments was with cumulative effect. He would, therefore, permanently draw salary increments less than his counterparts in the same pay scale. However, in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union (Supra), he was entitled for being subsequently. We find that respondent No.1 has been considered for promotion and has also been awarded promotion subsequently on the post question arises whether promotion Suresh Kumar 2025.04.05 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-374-2020 can be said to be retrospective and from the In our opinion and in view of the nature o respondent No.1, it is apparent that punishment, he was not entitled for promotion as he has been ultimately held guilty in t not have been in the year 2009 based on the year of empanelment of promotion was empanelled under challenge, therefore, granting him seniority over and above entire exercise of awarding of punishment meaningless. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the therefore, not sustainable and we accordingly set aside the order dated 22.11.2019. The appeal is 13. No costs. 14. Al accordingly. March 5, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2020 (O&M) said to be retrospective and from the date his juniors were promoted. In our opinion and in view of the nature o respondent No.1, it is apparent that w.e.f. punishment, he was not entitled for promotion as he has been ultimately held guilty in the departmental proceedings. not have been opened in his favor. The private respondents in the year 2009. So far as the drawing of seniority is concerned, it has to be based on the year of empanelment of promotion empanelled in promotion order w.e.f. 2012, which under challenge, whereas his juniors have been promoted in the year 2009 granting him seniority over and above entire exercise of awarding of punishment meaningless. In view of the aforesaid, the order of learned Single Bench is therefore, not sustainable and we accordingly set aside the order dated . The appeal is accordingly allowed No costs. All pending applications in this [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA , 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : date his juniors were promoted. In our opinion and in view of the nature of punishment awarded to w.e.f. 2009 till awarding of the punishment, he was not entitled for promotion as he has been ultimately he departmental proceedings. Thus, the sealed cover could The private respondents were promoted seniority is concerned, it has to be based on the year of empanelment of promotion. Since, the respondent No.1 2012, which, of course, is not been promoted in the year 2009, granting him seniority over and above them, would render the entire exercise of awarding of punishment to respondent No.1 as order of learned Single Bench is therefore, not sustainable and we accordingly set aside the order dated allowed. pending applications in this case are disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE : Yes : Yes Suresh Kumar 2025.04.05 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document