The court emphasized the importance of factual accuracy in decisions regarding promotions and the need to consider the cancellation of penalties imposed on the petitioner.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. This is a petition for quashing order dated 21.5.1986 (Annexure P.4) vide which Inspector General Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt. directed that promotion of the petitioner be kept in abeyance till his clearance in the enquiry.

2. The petitioner joined service as Constable in the State of Punjab on 7.1.1954. Puring the course of service, he received promotions as Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector. In 1985, his name was brought on list F after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 13.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short, the Rules), vide TPM message Annexure P.1 dated 16.5.1986, approval of the competent authority was conveyed to his promotion as officiating Inspector of Police. Thereafter, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt. passed order Annexure P.2 promoting him and one Kashmira Singh as officiating Inspectors. He was relieved by the Commandant. 80th Battalion, Punjab Armed Police vide TPM message Annexure P.3 dated 21.5.1986 for the purpose of joining his posting in the CID. However, the implementation of the order of his promotion was held in abeyance by the Inspector General, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt. on account of alleged pendency of departmental enquiry.

3. The petitioner has averred that the departmental enquiry initiated against him had been finalised much before the issuance of the impugned order and vide order dated 16.4.1986, penalty of forfeiture of one years service was imposed on him, but this fact was over-looked by Inspector General, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt. while issuing the impugned order.

4. In their written statement the respondents have admitted that the enquiry pending against the petitioner was finalised with the passing of order dated 16.4.1986. However, they have tried to justify the impugned order by asserting that the orders for his promotion and posting as Inspector of Police were passed without considering the punishment imposed by the competent authority. They have relied on Rule 13.14(2) of the Rules and averred that the petitioner, who had suffered punishment of forfeiture of one years service, is not entitled to be promoted.

5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed C.M. Nos. 2354 of 1992 and 18921-23 of 1999 for placing on record orders dated 5.12.1991 and 28.1.1993 issued by Commandant, 80th Battalion, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt, and letter dated 20.6.1995 sent by Director General of Police, Punjab to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt. The respondents also filed an affidavit of Shri Jaspal Singh Dhaliwal, Assistant Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Punjab in which the deponent made a reference to order dated 31.1.1992 passed by the competent authority reiterating the penalty earlier imposed on the petitioner.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioners promotion on the post of Inspector of Police was held in abeyance only on account of alleged pendency of departmental enquiry which, as per the admission made in the written statement of the respondents, stood finalised with the passing of order dated 16.4.1986. It is, thus, clear that the impugned order was passed on a factually erroneous premise, namely, the pendency of departmental enquiry and on that ground alone, the same is liable to be quashed.

7. The documents produced by the petitioner along with the civil miscellaneous applications show that the order of punishment was quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction add in compliance of the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts, the competent authority finally cancelled the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Thus, there remains no justification for withholding the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Inspector and it would be just and proper to direct the competent authority to