Can’t deny career benefits due to FIR: HC directs Punsup to promote employee

The case stemmed from Singh’s appointment letter, which required him to pass a typing test as a condition of service. He cleared it in March 2020, but Punsup withheld his increments and other perks, linking the delay to a 2017 police case filed by the vigilance bureau. No formal charges have been framed in that case to date, and Singh argued that the corporation could not penalise him solely on the basis of the ongoing investigation.

Justice Brar rejected Punsup’s stance, emphasising that a minor penalty from separate proceedings does not bar financial benefits like increments or promotions. He observed that denying earned increments amounts to punishing someone without fault. “It would be punishing a person for no fault of his,” the court quoted the apex court, adding that increments can only be withheld as a formal punishment after proven inefficiency or misconduct.

The high court further reasoned that an annual increment recognises services already rendered in the previous year and is a vested right, separate from future assessments. “The mere registration of a police case does not equate to misconduct or guilt but serves only as a marker of a future investigation whose outcome remains uncertain,” the judgment stated.

Consequently, the court quashed Punsup’s June 13, 2024, order and directed the corporation to grant Singh notional increments from October 15, 2002, with actual payments starting from the date he passed the typing test. It also ordered confirmation of his trial period completion from October 15, 2003, and consideration for promotion and the career progression scheme as per rules. The corporation has three months from receiving the order to comply.