121.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.02.2026 Paramdeep Singh Pandher .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, and Mr. Kanverpal Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

-----

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the revised/substituted promotion order dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-7) whereby the respondents have retrospectively altered and re-issued the original promotion order bearing the same date and number to the extent that the petitioner has been ignored for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner, State Tax (ACST), solely on the basis of a minor penalty of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect, and further a writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought directing respondent No.1 to grant antedated promotion to the petitioner to the post of ACST with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Excise and Taxation Inspector, vide appointment letter dated 10.07.2000 and joined as such on 13.07.2000 and thereafter, vide order dated 13.09.2012, he was appointed as Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO), currently known as State Tax Officer. A show cause notice dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) was issued to the petitioner by the department under Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, to which, he submitted reply on 10.06.2024 and while the said show cause notice was still pending, a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 22.10.2024 for promotion to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the petitioner was found fit and was promoted to the said post, vide order dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-5), however, his posting was kept in abeyance as he was in the currency period of punishment. In pursuance to the order dated 03.01.2025, the petitioner submitted joining report on 07.01.2025. However, the said order of promotion dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) was substituted with another office order of the same number and date (Annexure P-7), in which name of the petitioner was shifted to the list of officers, who had been ignored/not considered for promotion due to the punishment order dated 25.11.2024. It has been argued that apart from the other points, which have been raised in the present petition, the effect of punishment order dated 25.11.2024 has already been over on 24.11.2025.

Therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to at least promote the petitioner when the effect of the punishment order was over. He further submits that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P-8), which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-9) without assigning any reason whatsoever and by passing a cryptic and non-speaking order only by stating that the representation submitted by the petitioner has been carefully considered at the level of the competent authority on the basis of record and facts, and has been filed/consigned to records.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On receipt of advance copy of the petition, Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. He submits that the impugned order passed by the competent authority is justifiable and valid in the eyes of law.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

6. It is a settled proposition of law that promotion is not a vested right and that too during subsistence of currency period of punishment, however, once the ‘currency period’ is over, government employee becomes fully eligible for consideration of his name to the next post of promotion and in the present case, prima facie, the promo