The judgment establishes that a minor penalty of censure can have significant implications on an employee's benefits, especially when it relates to integrity and character, and emphasizes the importance of timely challenges to disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - This order will dispose of CWP No.13326 of 2015, Om Parkash v. State of Haryana and others & CWP No.13341 of 2015, Surender Singh v. State of Haryana and others. Mr. Namit Kumar says that the two cases are identical and can be decided by a common order. Facts have been culled from the first writ petition.

2. There is a striking distinction between the minor penalty of Censure for reasons other than doubting integrity of an employee and one which is not based on integrity doubted. If the basis of award of minor punishment of Censure relates to a charge of corruption and the integrity of the official is found under cloud, then the Haryana Government instructions dated May 21, 1973 would come into play. The instructions warrant that when doubt has been expressed by the reporting officer regarding honesty, and the remarks and assessment of the work and conduct of an employee, he should not be promoted. As per these instructions it will be open to the appointing authority to ignore adverse remarks relating to doubtful integrity in reports which are more than ten years old. The effect of punishment based on misconduct involving integrity and character when comes forth then a delinquent employee cannot claim promotion or ACP pay scales as a matter of right until the expiration of the period of ten years.

3. On facts, it may be stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that while posted at Police Post, Court Complex, Rewari on December 14, 2006, one Bhim Singh s/o Hukam Singh r/o Village Sulkha approached the petitioner for lodging a complaint of his missing mobile phone for which the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs. 100/- to register the complaint and on complainant's refusal to pay the amount the petitioner scored out the report made on the affidavit with his pen. The original was produced by Mr. Rathee for perusal of the Court. On examining it I find several words crossed out in the complaint on its reverse page. As a result of the complaint, the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and the punishment of Censure was awarded to him by order dated January 11, 2007. The punishment has attained finality. The petitioner says that when his case for grant of 2nd ACP came up of for consideration he came to know of the order and appealed against it. The appeal has been rejected on November 12, 2013 by order Annex P-5.

4. Due to award of punishment of Censure, the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of 2nd ACP on completion of 16 years of service as per notification dated March 04, 2014 and he has also not been made an Exemptee ASI on completion of 22 years of service as per letter dated September 22, 2008.

5. Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the effect of minor punishment of Censure only remains for six months and, therefore, it was liable to be ignored and a direction deserves to be issued to the respondents to release the monetary benefit of ACP pay scale and also to consider his case for promotion.

6. Against the punishment order dated January 11, 2007 the petitioner filed CWP No.10410 of 2014 it was disposed of on May 26, 2014 with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation to the Inspector General of Police and the same when submitted shall be considered and decided within a period of three months. The representation was submitted on June 01, 2014.

7. On August 26, 2014 the Inspector General of Police, South Range, Rewari has passed an order that in spite of punishment of Censure on grounds of corruption, his ACR for the year 2006-07 (the relevant period) he has found therein an assessment of the petitioner recorded as 'Good'. Accordingly, a direction has been issued to the Superintendent of Police, Rewari to downgrade the petitioner's ACR suitably for the period of misconduct citing Government instructions dated October 22, 2001.

8. Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel submits that no such direction co