HC slams Punjab, minister for ‘gross illegality’; orders Rs 1 lakh cost 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually admonished the State of Punjab and a minister for committing “gross illegality”.

The censure came as Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu imposed Rs 1 lakh cost as a deterrent in a case where a Sub Divisional Engineer was denied promotion as an executive engineer. The amount was directed to be paid by the State to the petitioner-SDE within three months.

Justice Sindhu’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that an annual increment for two years was stopped without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner following the non-shifting of electricity poles during the carpeting of a village link road, for which the contractor concerned was held responsible.

“It seems that the petitioner has been victimised by the respondent-State, merely on the basis of so-called approval given by the minister-in-charge and punishment for stoppage of one annual increment for two years was imposed without following the due procedure prescribed under the rules. Otherwise, there was no occasion to take such a drastic step in these circumstances,” Justice Sindhu asserted. Petitioner Sukhpreet Singh was represented by senior advocate Pawan Kumar with counsel Vidushi Kumar.

Referring to the information received by the petitioner under the RTI, Justice Sindhu asserted it clearly indicated that he was found eligible for promotion as executive engineer (civil). His name was duly recommended. But he was still denied the lawful claim.

Justice Sindhu observed penalties, including ‘withholding of increment of pay without cumulative effect’ might be imposed on a government employee according to the rules for ‘good and sufficient’ reasons. But reason was not assigned while passing the impugned order.

“It is evident that even the minister-in-charge granted approval for imposition of penalty for stoppage of one annual increment for two years without following the procedure prescribed under the rules. Both of them – respondent-State, as well as the minister-in-charge, while passing the impugned orders committed gross illegality,” the court observed.

Justice Sindhu observed that the petitioner was denied promotion on the basis of DPC recommendations dated September 19, 2023, despite the fact that the impugned order of minor punishment was passed much later on April 10. As such, the respondents’ action amounted to applying the punishment order retrospectively.

“There would be no hesitation to hold that the respondents’ action is grossly illegal and the impugned decision/order was passed just to deprive the petitioner of his lawful claim for promotion to the post of executive engineer (civil),” Justice Sindhu asserted. Allowing the plea, the court directed the respondents to open the ‘sealed cover’ regarding the petitioner’s promotion case and “proceed further in accordance with law, without any further delay”.