Swinder Pal Kaur vs State of Punjab and Another

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition impugning the order dated 30.1.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Secretary, Department of Education, State of Punjab, whereby the benefit of promotion granted to her on the post of Lecturer vide order dated 19.5.2012 has been withdrawn and it has been directed that the period of service that she had served as a Lecturer shall be treated as on her original post i.e. S.S. Mistress. Further directions have been issued to the concerned D.D.O. for re-fixing her pay accordingly and to recover the amount that has been paid in excess. The petitioner has also been held liable to be proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 for having got the promotion in an unlawful manner by stating false information as regards her service particulars. Brief facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as S.S. Mistress in the year 1994. The selection and appointment of the petitioner along with a number of similarly situated employees were quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 28.9.1994 rendered in CWP No. 5985 of 1994 titled as Yashwinder Singh Rana Vs. State of Punjab. Such decision was upheld even by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In pursuance thereto the services of the petitioner were terminated. Even though, the petitioner was, thereafter, engaged on 89 days basis along with notional breaks but it was only in the year 1997 that she was regularly appointed as S.S. Mistress.

It so transpires that the petitioner was promoted as a Lecturer vide order dated 19.5.2012 by taking into consideration her initial appointment and seniority in the Mistress Cadre with effect from the initial appointment i.e. in the year 1994, which, otherwise, had been held to be bad and illegal by this Court. In this regard the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 6.12.2012 so as to rectify such wrongful grant of promotion and for withdrawal of the benefit. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 2.1.2013 and after considering the same, the impugned order has been passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, would make a submission that he would not be raising a challenge in so far as withdrawal of promotion is concerned. Counsel would argue that he would confine the scope of the present writ petition only as regards the recovery i.e. sought to be effected from the petitioner on account of withdrawal of the promotion order. Counsel would argue that the petitioner has admittedly worked against the higher post of Lecturer in pursuance to the promotion having been effected vide order dated 19.5.2012 and as such, even if, withdrawal of the same was to be accepted, no recovery can be effected. That apart, counsel would argue that there would be no basis for the respondent-department to even contemplate initiation of action under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the considered view that no basis for interference is made out.

The petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1994 and such appointment had been struck down by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was regularly appointed in the Mistress Cadre only w.e.f. 13.2.1997. At the stage of considering the cases of promotion to the post of Lecturer the petitioner had concealed and misrepresented the facts inasmuch as in the proforma for promotion from the post of Mistress Cadre to Lecturer, the petitioner had furnished her date of appointment as 22.2.1994. Such misrepresentation has been duly taken notice of in the impugned order dated 30.1.2013 (Annexure P-4). An employee, who has secured the benefit of promotion to a higher post by giving false information, cannot be permitted to turn around and to contend that having worked on the higher post, no recovery as regards the higher wages having been drawn can be effected. Such a prayer, if, accepted, would amount to putting premium on dishonesty.

The impugned order has been passed on valid and cogent basis. No interference is called for. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.