Ranbir Singh vs Haryana State Cooperative … on 25 August, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                  C.W.P. No. 3951 of 2008
                                         DATE OF DECISION : 25.08.2009

Ranbir Singh

                                                             .... PETITIONER

                                  Versus

Haryana State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank
Limited, Panchkula and another

                                                          ..... RESPONDENTS


CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL


Present:    Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Rajbir Singh Sihag, Advocate,
            for the respondents.

                         ***


SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.

The petitioner, who is working as Peon in the Office of District

Primary Cooperative and Rural Development Bank Limited, Ladwa, District

Kurukshetra, has filed the instant petition for quashing the action of the

respondents in not promoting him; and for issuing a direction to the

respondents to promote the petitioner as Clerk with effect from 30.4.2005,

the date his junior was promoted by ignoring his claim.

It is the admitted position that in the Annual Confidential

Report of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, his integrity was recorded
CWP No. 3951 of 2008 -2-

to be doubtful and overall work was assessed as `average’. Further, vide

order dated 9.10.2002, in a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was

awarded the punishment of stoppage of his two annual increments with

cumulative effect. It is the stand of the respondents that due to these two

factors, claim of the petitioner for promotion was considered and rejected,

when one Suresh Kumar, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted on

30.4.2005.

After hearing counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in

this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the ACR of

the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, his integrity was recorded doubtful

and on the basis of the said ACR, his claim for promotion could not have

been rejected in April, 2005, when his junior was promoted. Learned

counsel further argued that the nature of allegations in the departmental

enquiry, in which punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with

cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner, was not much serious.

Therefore, the petitioner should not have been ignored by taking into

consideration the said punishment.

The aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner cannot be accepted. I am of the considered view that in view of

the fact that in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, his

integrity was recorded to be doubtful and in view of the punishment

imposed vide order dated 9.10.2002, the petitioner was rightly ignored for

promotion to the post of Clerk in April, 2005. No ground to interfere in the
CWP No. 3951 of 2008 -3-

matter is made out.

Dismissed.

August 25, 2009          ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ndj                               JUDGE