HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Reserved on 11.02.2025 Pronounced on 08.05.2025 ****

Dhani Ram Chaudhary ... Petitioner VS.

State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Jitender K. Goel, Advocate, Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate, For the petitioner Mr. BS Virk, Sr.DAG Haryana ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari seeking for quashing the impugned order dated 02.05.1997 (Annexure P-2) by which the petitioner has been ignored for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer allegedly by passing a vague, cryptic and non- speaking order. A further prayer has been made for quashing the impugned order dated 21.03.1997 (Annexure P-14 colly) imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect besides ordering recovery without any justification. The petitioner has also sought a mandamus directing the respondent-Department to consider and promote him from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 05.04.1995 the date when his immediate junior (respondent No.3) was promoted or from any other date he gained eligibility for the said promotion.

(2). The petitioner joined as Sub Divisional Engineer on ad hoc basis in the PWD Public Health Department, Haryana at Faridabad on 29.07.1970 followed by his selection on a regular post by the Haryana Public Service Commission on 15.12.1970. The petitioner ranked at Sr.No.36 in the seniority list whereas respondent No.3 was just below him at Sr.No.37. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 29.11.1977, however, at the time of promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, he was ignored allegedly due to pendency of charge-sheet and respondent No.3, who is statedly junior to him was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 05.04.1995 along with 5 other persons who were also promoted on various dates.

(3). The aggrieved petitioner challenged the charge-sheet in CWP No.2151 of 1994 which was disposed of relegating him to appear before the Punishing Authority to defend his case and pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed his reply/additional reply on 11.01.1996 and 18.07.1996 (Annexure P11). He also filed CWP No.5890 of 1995 challenging the promotion order of respondent No.3-SK Khanna which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.09.1996 (Annexure P1) by observing as under:-

“After having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner in order to determine whether denial of promotion to him is justified or not. The circular issued in the year 1971 with reference to the provisions of Rules of 1952 may have outlived its utility after the coming into force of ‘1987 Rules’, but that is a matter on which we need not dilate further. The ends of justice in this case will be fully served by directing the Government to finalise the proceedings pending against the petitioner within a specified time period and to consider his case for promotion in the light of the result of those disciplinary proceedings.

The charge sheets under Rule 7 of ‘1987 Rules’ were served upon the petitioner in the years 1990, 1991 and 1993. One of them already stands quashed by the High Court. In regard to two other charge sheets, sufficiently long time has elapsed and, therefore, it is appropriate for the Government to take a final decision at the earliest. Similarly, two charge sheets issued to the petitioner for enquiry under Rule 8 deserve to be decided at the earliest.

We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondents to take final decision on various charge sheets served upon the petitioner under Rules 7 and 8 of ‘1987 Rules’ within a period of four m