IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

214 Date of decision: 01.04.2026 Inder Raj Bhatia .....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for claiming the following reliefs :-

“xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx b. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.03.2017 issued vide endorsement dated 21.06.2017 (P-16) being a non speaking order by which appeal filed by the petitioner to promote him notionally as Panchayat Officer has been rejected/consigned to file without giving any reason and without considering the facts, which is arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law as proceedings for promotion as Panchayat officers by departmental promotion committee/ Respondent No.2 were started doing his service and before his retirement i.e. 30.04.2006 (P-2 & P-3) and his juniors were promoted vide order dated 11.10.2006 (P-4) but petitioner was not considered as his case for promotion was not forwarded by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.2 on the ground of false F.I.R registered against the petitioner, in which petitioner has been acquitted vide order dated 23.05.2014 (P-1) and also keeping in view the settled law that even if any charge sheet/ inquiry/court case in pending against the employee, DPC must consider his case for promotion and result can be kept in the seal cover, and the employee can be promoted even after retirement, with all consequential benefits, in the interest justice.

c. Further issuance of a writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner notionally as Panchayat Officer as his juniors were considered & promoted vide order dated 11.10.2006, (P-4) as proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) were started during his service and before his retirement i.e. 30.04.2006 (P-2 & P- 3) keeping in view the settled law that even if any charge sheet/inquiry/ court case in pending against the employee, DPC must consider his case for promotion and result can be kept in the seal cover and if found fit, would be entitled to be promoted with all consequential benefits from the date he was entitled to be considered and promoted and to grant revised pension and other pensionary benefits accordingly, along with the interest @12 % P.A, in the interest of justice.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary and joined as such on 23.08.1974 at Panchayat Samiti, Phillaur, District Jalandhar. While he was in service, an FIR No.22 dated 07.06.2004 was registered against the petitioner, under Section 409 of IPC and Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, wherein the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Special Court, Ludhiana, vide order dated 23.05.2014 (Annexure P-1). He further submits that the petitioner was eligible for further promotion to the post of Panchayat Officer and the department, vide its letter dated 11.01.2006 (Annexure P-2), directed all the Executive Officers/Zila Parishads to send the service record of the Panchayat Secretaries from seniority No.541 to 620 for promotion against 22 vacant posts of Panchayat Officers. Since the department received record of only few Panchayat Secretaries, the department issued a warning letter dated 01.03.2006 and sent another letter dated 11.05.2006 to the Executive Officers/Zila Parishads to send the record of Panchayat Secretaries from seniority No.541 to 620 for promotion against 22 vacant posts of Panchayat Officer. After receiving the record of all the Panchayat Secre