- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to respondents Nos.1 to consider him for the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date persons junior to him from the rank of Junior Engineer have been promoted with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in this petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 10.4.1973 on the post of Assistant Foreman on regular basis. He was promoted as Junior Engineer on 1.1.1983. He has claimed that respondents No. 6 to 14 have been junior to him in the rank of Junior Engineer as per the seniority list dated 30.7.2002 (Annexure P1). The name of the petitioner in the seniority list appears at Sr.No. 6, whereas that of respondents No. 6 to 14 are at Sr.No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 & 16, respectively. On 20.4.1999, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner under regulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity Board/Nigam (Punishment & Appeal) Regulation, 1990. The petitioner filed reply to the aforementioned charge sheet on 22.9.1999 (Annexure P3). On 28.12.1999 without holding any enquiry and after consideration of his reply the respondent stopped two annual grade increments of the petitioner without future effect (Annexure P4). On 20.8.2001 the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect on the direction issued by Hon'ble the Chief Minister Haryana as one Dharam Singh had levelled allegation of accepting illegal gratification by the petitioner. He was reinstated in service on 17.1.2002 (Annexure P6). Again a charge sheet was served upon him on 27.8.2002 (Annexure P7). On 23.5.2003, respondent No. 1 promoted private respondents No. 6 to 10 on the post of Assistant Engineer and the case of the petitioner for promotion was deferred as is evident from the order of promotion dated 23.5.2003 (Annexure P9). In Clause 7 of the order, it has been held that the name of the petitioner ranking at Sr.No. 6 of the rank list has been deferred for promotion due to pending charge sheet and punishment of stoppage of two increments without future effect. On 14.7.2003 the charge sheet dated 27.8.2002 issued against the petitioner was dropped (Annexure P10). The petitioner represented on 14.7.2003 with a prayer to promote him on the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 23.5.2003 when persons junior to him i.e. Respondents No. 6 to 10 were promoted (Annexure P11). He submitted another representation dated 29.7.2003 claiming the same relief. Despite the claim made by the petitioner another set of 11 Junior Engineers who were ranking below the petitioner were further promoted as Assistant Engineer on the same excuse (Annexure P13). On 7.8.2003 the petitioner again submitted a representation clarifying the whole factual position. It was pointed out that the punishment of stoppage of two increments was imposed on 28.12.1999 and the aforementioned period came to an end at best in December 2001. The subsequent charge sheet dated 27.8.2002 was also dropped. The suspension period of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 8.8.2003 (Annexure P16). Despite that respondents promoted another Junior Engineer respondent No. 12 on the post of Assistant Engineer superseding the petitioner by citing the same reason. Eventually the petitioner served legal notices upon respondents through his learned counsel on 10.3.2004 and 16.4.2004 (Annexures P18 & P19), respectively, and respondent had still promoted respondents No. 13 & 14 to the post of Assistant Engineer deferring the case of the petitioner on the excuse that two charge sheets were contemplated (Annexure P20).
(3.) Respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed their written statements. The stand taken by the respondents is that vigilance enquiry is still pending against the petitioner. It is further conceded that the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect inflicted vide order dated 28.12.1999 was to operate for two years and its effect came to an end on 30.4.2002. It has been asserted that one increment was also stopped without future effect vide order dated 2.1.2003 which was still operating on 23.5.2003 and the petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings as per charge sheet dated 27.8.2002.;