JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

This Writ Petition is preferred by the petitioner praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner on the post of Technical Advisor (Auto) w.e.f. 01.01.1992 when the post fell vacant on account of the refusal for promotion of his immediate senior. Further the petitioner prays for quashing of the adverse remarks entered in the ACR; and order whereby his representation was rejected. Further he prays for quashing of the punishment order dt.26.06.1996 (Annexure P-21) whereby he has been awarded the punishment of censure; and also the order dt.13.11.1999 whereby his Appeal regarding entry of adverse remarks was rejected.

2. The brief facts, as stated by the petitioner, are that the post of Motor Mechanic is to be filled by promotion from the post of Driver and there is further channel of promotion to the post of Technical Advisor (Auto). When the post of Technical Advisor (Auto) fell vacant, the petitioner, who was holding the post of Motor Mechanic, applied for consideration for his promotion to the post of Technical Advisor (Auto). One Kishori Lal, Motor Mechanic, who was senior to the petitioner, refused promotion, but respondent No.3-Additional Director (Admn.), on account of personal vengeance and prejudice, did not allow the petitioner to get promoted to be considered for the said post. Respondent No.3 is stated to have manoeuvred a false complaint against the petitioner from his personal Driver alleging the petitioner to have used caste related abusive language. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 11.04.1994. An adverse remark was also entered in the ACR for the 1993-94 and was transferred from his place of posting i.e. from Chandigarh to Amritsar although there was no post of Motor Mechanic available at Amritsar.

3. The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition i.e. CWP-8132-1994 challenging his transfer alleging malafide against Babu Lal, Additional Director (Admn.). However, as the State conceded that there is no Auto Workshop at any place throughout the State of Punjab except at Chandigarh therefore, the order of transfer was quashed by the Division Bench on 11.08.1994. The allegations of malafide were not gone into as the same were denied.

4. On the basis of adverse remark and the enquiry initiated, the claim of the petitioner for promotion was ignored and a person junior to him was promoted as Technical Advisor (Auto). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not have been denied consideration for promotion and at best his case could have been kept in a sealed cover. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents by preferring a Writ Petition i.e. CWP-7075-1996 alleging malafide. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner could not have been ignored from consideration for promotion merely because an enquiry is pending. The Division Bench, while dismissing CWP-7075-1996 on 16.05.1996 has observed as under:-

"We find that in the writ petition no prayer has been made by the petitioner for issue of mandamus to the respondents to finalize the enquiry proceedings but even then we f-eel that there is little justification for keeping the matter pending after the enquiry officer has submitted his report. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition in so far as challenge to Annexure P-3 is concerned but at the same time the respondent No.2 is directed to take final decision in the enquiry proceedings pending against the petitioner within a period of four weeks of the submission of