HC slams state, minister for ‘gross illegality’; imposes 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 in a case where a Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE) 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 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 village link road, for which the contractor concerned was held responsible.

“It seems that 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,” 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 further observed the petitioner was denied promotion on the basis of the DPC recommendations dated September 19, 2023, despite the fact that 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 order was passed just to deprive the petitioner from his lawful claim for promotion,” Justice Sindhu asserted.