Promotion Can't Be Withheld On Mere Registration Of FIR: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Relief To Army Official

The Punjab & Haryana High Court while granting relief to an Army Official has ruled that promotion can't be withheld on mere registration of an FIR.

The Court was considering a Petition challenging the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal by which the benefit of promotion to the post of Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) was not granted to the Petitioner on account of criminal proceedings pending against him.

The Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri observed, "That being so, the act of respondent of treating the disciplinary proceedings pending or the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner as an impediment so as to withhold the promotion of the petitioner is incorrect."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Navdeep Singh, while the Respondent was represented by Senior Panel Counsel Rohit Verma.

Facts of the Case

The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that when the Petitioner was in service, his claim for promotion to the post of Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) was considered and approved but, by placing reliance upon the Clause 3 (a) of the Army Order, the Respondents did not implement said promotion order on the ground that there is a criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, which is contrary to the rules governing the service so as to grant promotion.

He further argued that though the claim of the Petitioner is not covered under the said Clause 3 (a) of the Army order, but, by treating an FIR registered against the Petitioner as a criminal proceedings pending facing persecution, Respondents made the case of the Petitioner to fall under Clause 3 (a) of the Army Order in order to withhold the promotion and the Tribunal without appreciating the settled principle of law though, noticed in the order itself, has declined the claim of the Petitioner.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the question before it is whether merely registration of an FIR against the petitioner will cover the case of the Petitioner under “disciplinary cases” or “criminal cases” ?

It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991), wherein it was held that the pendency of criminal proceedings can only be treated as an impediment for the purpose of promotion if in case the charge-sheet has been filed i.e. charges have been framed and the pendency with regard to disciplinary proceedings can only be treated as such in case the charge-sheet has been served upon the delinquent concerned.

"Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, when an actual promotion order dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) had already been issued in favour of petitioner for promoting him to the post of Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) which promotion order has been withheld by respondent by wrongly interpreting the provisions of Army Order reproduced herein before and the non-consideration of the settled principle of law in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K. V. Janki Raman’s case (supra) it would be correct to put that the Tribunal has caused prejudice to the petitioner", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Jaspreet Singh vs. Union of India and Others (2025:PHHC:114147-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Navdeep Singh, Advocate Roopan Atwal

Respondent- Senior Panel Counsel Rohit Verma

Click here to read/ download Order