CWP No. 471 of 2023(O&M)

1

118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 471 of 2023 (O&M)

Date of decision : January 24, 2023

Maninderjit Singh

...... Petitioner

Versus

Chairman Punjab Mandi Board and another

...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

***

Present :-Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate

for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

***

PANKAJ JAIN,

J. (ORAL)

CM-1235-CWP-2023

This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record. The

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class I) Service Rules, 1988 as

Annexure P-14.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, application is allowed. The

aforementioned Rules are taken on record as Annexure P-14 subject to all just

exceptions.

ARCHANA ARORA

2023.02.08 12:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment

CWP No. 471 of 2023(O&M)

2

CWP No. 471 of 2023

Present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned

order dated 18.10.2022 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the

claim of the petitioner for promotion as District Mandi Officer w.e.f. 07.12.2018

i.e. the date on which the petitioner claims that his juniors were promoted along

with all consequential benefits has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was posted as

Deputy District Mandi Officer in the year 2017 and was due to be promoted as

District Mandi Officer. During his tenure while working as District Mandi

Officer the petitioner was charge sheeted on 12.12.2017. The said disciplinary

proceedings finally culminated in the order dated 06.02.2019 whereby the

petitioner was awarded with the punishment of stoppage of one increment without

cumulative effect. The order has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. During

the period the disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner, DPC

was held and the result of the petitioner was kept in a sealed envelope to await the

decision of disciplinary proceedings. In view of the fact that the petitioner was

awarded penalty, he could be promoted only in the subsequent DPC held on

27.12.2019 w.e.f. 25.02.2020. The petitioner represented to the respondent-

authorities claiming that he was entitled for notional promotion w.e.f. the date his

juniors were promoted primarily on two grounds:

ARCHANA ARORA

2023.02.08 12:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment

CWP No. 471 of 2023(O&M)

3

i) Stoppage of promotion is one of the punishments provided

under the rules and thus, stoppage of increments coupled with

stoppage of promotion would amount to double jeopardy.

ii) The petitioner cannot be made to suffer even beyond the currency

of minor punishment awarded vide order dated 06.02.2019

(Annexure P-1).

The respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner relying upon the

instructions issued by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The operative part

thereof which has been relied upon is as under:-

“17.6.2. if any penalty is imposed on the Government servant as a result of the

disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the criminal prosecution

against him, the findings of the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon. His

case for promotion may be considered by the next DPC in the normal course

and having regard to the penalty imposed on him.”

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through

the record of the case.

So far as the first plea raised by the petitioner is concerned with

respect to double jeopardy is concerned, the issue is well settled by the Apex

Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K. V. Jankiraman 1991 (4) SCC 109

and further followed in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thiru K. S.

Murugesan 1995 (3) SCC 273 wherein it has been held tha