125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.10.2025 Sarbjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sethi, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) whereby the deemed dated of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Circle Assistant has been erroneously determined as 27.11.2013 while it ought to be 28.11.2011.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner joined the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB), now respondent-PSPCL, as an Upper Division Clerk(UDC) on 14.03.1997. He is currently working as Superintendent Grade- II in the office of the Chief Financial Officer. The petitioner cleared the departmental exam papers and became eligible for promotion in accordance with the Punjab State Electricity Board (Ministerial Services Class III) Regulations, 1985 (hereinafter ‘Regulations of 1985’). The seniority of the petitioner was fixed at serial no.6226, as reflected by Annexure P-2. However, the juniors of the petitioner were promoted in the year 2011 while he was promoted only on 24.12.2014. Be that as it may, the promotion of the petitioner was placed under a sealed cover in view of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was falsely accused of unauthorized release of an electricity connection resulting in initiation of disciplinary proceedings as well as registration of an FIR. However, the same remained pending for a considerable period of time. Meanwhile, several juniors of the petitioner were granted promotion and thereby advancement in service through successive Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs). The petitioner was subsequently reinstated into service vide order dated 06.06.2006 and his services were regularized thereafter. Upon repeated representations made by the petitioner, a regular departmental inquiry was conducted based on charge sheet No.179 dated 31.03.2006. The inquiry report submitted in furtherance thereof states that the role of the petitioner was limited to clerical functions and the only imputation against him was his failure to detect three allegedly bogus electricity connections. Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer duly acknowledged that the responsibility of releasing or disconnecting connections remained solely with higher authorities and the duties of the petitioner were confined to maintaining account records and verifying payments made by customers. In spite of such findings, vide order dated 13.12.2014, a major penalty was imposed on him i.e. stoppage of three annual increments which, upon appeal, was subsequently modified to stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner was also acquitted in the FIR registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide judgment dated 10.01.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, Bathinda.

4. He further submits that while the petitioner was eventually promoted vide order dated 24.12.2014, the same was with effect from a later date, without accounting for his rightful entitlement especially in view of the date of promotion of his juniors. In doing so, the petitioner has been made to face a double disadvantage i.e. loss of seniority as well as exclusion from two promotional avenues resulting in his juniors being placed at higher posts than him. Due to the laxity displayed by the respondents, the petitioner suffered recurring financial loss and career stagnation. The petitioner also moved several representations for correction of his deemed date of promotion, however, the same was ultimately a