Civil Judge Moves Punjab & Haryana High Court Against Denial Of Promotion Due To Pending Disciplinary Proceedings

A Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate in Haryana has approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the denial of his promotion to the post of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), alleging that the decision to withhold his elevation is arbitrary and solely based on the pendency of disciplinary proceedings at a preliminary stage.

The petition assails the Full Court decision dated April 21, 2025, as well as the subsequent order dated July 14, 2025, whereby his representation against non-promotion was rejected.

A bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, appointed senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram to assist the court as amicus curiae and fixed May 22 for further hearing.

As per the plea, despite being senior to several officers who were promoted in April 2025 and August 2025, the petitioner was “passed over” only on account of a pending complaint before the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee (VDC). It is contended that such pendency, at a stage prior to issuance of any chargesheet or initiation of a formal inquiry, cannot be a legally sustainable ground to deny promotion.

The judge asserts that he fulfills all prescribed criteria laid down by the High Court for promotion, including the requirement of “B Plus (Good)” gradings in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the relevant period. He emphasizes that no entry of “integrity doubtful” has ever been recorded in his service record, and the only remark in his ACR for 2022–2023 merely notes that a complaint is pending consideration before the VDC.

Challenging the reliance on such remarks, the plea submits that the ACR in question had not attained finality, and even the competent authority had permitted the petitioner to submit a representation against the remarks only after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, treating such incomplete or contingent remarks as a basis to deny promotion is stated to be contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence.

It is further argued that there exists no rule or legal provision permitting withholding of promotion merely due to pendency of a complaint or disciplinary proceedings at a nascent stage. The petition contends that, at best, such action may be justified only after a decision to initiate a formal inquiry, and not prior to that stage.

The petitioner has also raised grievance regarding denial of an opportunity of personal hearing before the Chief Justice, despite repeated requests, contending that such denial is contrary to principles of fairness and judicial precedents emphasizing access of judicial officers to administrative authorities.

Terming the impugned action as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the plea argues that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and denial of such consideration on extraneous grounds amounts to arbitrariness.

Accordingly, the petitioner has sought quashing of the Full Court decision dated April 21, 2025, and the order rejecting his representation, along with directions to consider his case for promotion to the post of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in accordance with law.

Title: P v. P&H High Court through its Registrar