A Division bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri held that mere registration of an FIR does not amount to pendency of criminal proceedings, and promotion can be withheld only after a charge-sheet is filed or charges are framed.
Background Facts
During the service, a promotion order dated 25.05.2022 was issued in favour of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO). However, the promotion was not implemented by the respondents on the ground that an FIR had been registered against the petitioner. The authorities treated the registration of FIR as pendency of criminal proceedings relying upon Clause 3(a) of the Army Order. Therefore, withheld the promotion.
The petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, challenging the non-implementation of the promotion order. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 14.12.2023. It upheld the stand of the authorities that the pending FIR disentitled th petitioner from availing the benefit of promotion.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
It was submitted by the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner was not covered under the Clause 3(a) of the Army order. However, the respondents treated an FIR registered against the petitioner as a criminal proceedings pending facing persecution, and made the case of the petitioner to fall under Clause 3 (a) of the Army Order in order to withhold the promotion.
On the other hand it was submitted by the respondents that the promotion of the petitioner could not be implemented as an FIR had already been registered against him, which amounted to pendency of criminal proceedings in terms of Clause 3(a) of the Army Order. It was further submitted that the Armed Forces Tribunal had rightly concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of promotion during the pendency of the FIR.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the court that the petitioner had already been promoted to the post of Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) vide order dated 25.05.2022, but the promotion was withheld on the basis of an FIR registered against him. It was held that mere registration of an FIR does not amount to pendency of criminal proceedings for the purpose of denying promotion under Clause 3(a) of the Army Order.
The case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, was relied upon by the court wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that criminal proceedings can be treated as pending only when a charge-sheet has been filed in court and cognizance has been taken, and disciplinary proceedings only when a charge memo has been served on the delinquent.
It was further observed that the respondents admitted in their communication dated 15.01.2024 that no cognizance of the alleged offence had been taken and no charges had been framed against the petitioner. Therefore, the act of the respondents in treating the FIR as pendency of criminal proceedings and withholding the promotion order was found to be contrary to law.
It was held by the court that the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal was perverse and could not be sustained. Accordingly, the same was set aside. Further the respondents were directed by the court to treat the petitioner as promoted to the post of Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) in terms of the order dated 25.05.2022, with all consequential benefits including salary and service-related entitlements.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to comply with the order within eight weeks.
Case Name : Jaspreet Singh vs Union Of India And Others
Case No. : CM-317-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No. 16553 of 2024 (O&M)
Counsel for the Petitioner : Navdeep Singh, Advocate with Roopan Atwal
Counsel for the Respondents : Rohit Verma, Senior Pa