Mere FIR is No Ground to Withhold Promotion; Filing of Charge Sheet is Necessary: Punjab and Haryana High Court - 2025-08-27

Mere FIR No Bar to Promotion, Charge Sheet is a Prerequisite: Punjab and Haryana HC

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) that denied promotion to an army personnel, ruling that the mere registration of an FIR cannot be treated as a pending criminal proceeding to withhold a promotion. A division bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri held that disciplinary or criminal proceedings are considered initiated only after a charge memo is served or a charge sheet is filed in court.

The bench directed the Union of India to treat the petitioner, Jaspreet Singh, as a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) from the date of his original promotion order, with all consequential benefits.

Case Background

The petitioner, Jaspreet Singh, challenged an order dated December 14, 2023, by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh. Despite being found eligible and being issued a promotion order to the rank of Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) on May 25, 2022, his promotion was withheld by the authorities. The reason cited was the pendency of an FIR against him, which they claimed fell under the "criminal cases" clause of the relevant Army Order.

Arguments in Court

The petitioner's counsel argued that the authorities wrongly interpreted the Army Order. It was contended that merely registering an FIR does not amount to "facing prosecution by Government in a Court of Law," as stipulated in the rules. The counsel emphasized that the promotion was withheld by incorrectly equating an FIR with a formal criminal prosecution.

Conversely, the respondents, representing the Union of India, submitted that the registration of an FIR against a government official is sufficient to constitute a pending criminal prosecution. They argued that the AFT's decision was valid and in accordance with Clause 3(a) of the Army Order.

Court's Reliance on Settled Law

The High Court heavily relied on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 . The bench noted that the apex court had settled this very issue decades ago.

The court quoted the Jankiraman judgment, stating:

“...it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.”

The court observed that in Jaspreet Singh's case, it was a "conceded position" by the respondents themselves that no cognizance of the offence had been taken and no charges had been framed against the petitioner.

Final Verdict and Directions

Finding the AFT's order "perverse to the settled principle of law," the High Court quashed it. The judgment stated, "...the act of respondent of treating the disciplinary proceedings pending or the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner as an impediment so as to withhold the promotion of the petitioner is incorrect."

The court issued a clear directive to the respondents:

“The respondents are directed that keeping in view the order dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner be treated as Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) for all intents and purposes including the salary and other benefit admissible during the service.”

The authorities have been given eight weeks from the receipt of the order to comply with the directions.