HC slams Haryana’s ‘absurd’ stand, grants promotion to retired officer 17 years later

Admonishing the state of Haryana for adopting a stand “entirely absurd and lacking a valid foundation in law”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the denial of promotion to a retired officer, 17 years after his juniors were elevated to the post of District Development and Panchayat Officer.

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj held that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was a prerequisite for withholding promotion or retirement benefits. Once the state itself admitted that a chargesheet concerning acts/omissions occurring more than four years prior to the date of superannuation could not have been issued, “it could not then deprive the benefit of statutory protection by relying on an assumed interpretation of the statutory rules”.

The case had its genesis in 2008, when the employee’s juniors were promoted. The only actual chargesheet ever served upon him was in connection with a separate matter dated May 29, 2008. That charge was dropped seven years later—on September 16, 2015—after the enquiry officer held that the charges could not be proved.

Justice Bhardwaj observed the state counsel was not in a position to dispute that actual chargesheet under the provisions of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules for misappropriation of government money amounting to Rs 43,330 was ever served upon the petitioner.

Elaborating, he contended that Mahendragarh Deputy Commissioner was asked to send a draft chargesheet. But a chargesheet could not have been served upon the petitioner post his retirement on April 30, 2011, “particularly in relation to an event that occurred more than four years prior to the date of his superannuation”. He, at the same time, added that the petitioner’s act of depositing Rs 43,330 was required to be treated as an admission of the charges levelled against him.

“I find that the stand adopted by the respondent is entirely absurd and lacks a valid foundation in law…. Such an action on the part of the respondent is clearly in contravention of the protective statutory provisions and amounts to an attempt to override the express legislative intent to condone or exempt an employee from disciplinary proceedings in relation to such past events,” Justice Bhardwaj asserted.

The impugned order dated June 19, 2023, rejecting his claim to promotion, was described as “cryptic and non-speaking”. Allowing the petition, Justice Bhardwaj directed the state to grant promotion to with effect from May 30, 2008, the date his juniors were promoted. The retirement benefits were directed to be recalculated and released within two months of receiving the order.

Haryana Tribune