UPSC clears promotion of 18 Haryana officers to IAS

The long-pending promotions had been delayed due to ongoing legal proceedings. The process gained momentum following persistent follow-ups by senior officials in the Haryana government. In 2023, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) filed a chargesheet in the Hisar court regarding the 2002 recruitment — a development that had stalled the career progression of many state officers.

Explaining the “provisional” tag, a senior official said: “There was a view that the officers are fit for promotion, except for the fact that an FIR is pending against them and a chargesheet has been filed in court. In past cases, courts have quashed such chargesheets. If that happens here, their promotions will be treated as regular from the current date.”

Another officer clarified that if the chargesheet is not quashed by December 31, the recommendation for promotion will lapse. “In that case, a notification will not be issued for these eight officers. However, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is expected to soon issue the notification for the 18 officers whose promotions have been cleared,” the officer added.

The chargesheet has remained a stumbling block for several years, repeatedly stalling the promotion process.

In March this year, when the state government again approached the UPSC for promotions, it argued that the term “chargesheet” should not be interpreted as the final report filed under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, the UPSC returned the proposal after the Solicitor General of India disagreed with the state’s position.

“All cases where a report under Section 173 CrPC has been filed must be treated as chargesheets under Regulation 5(5) of the IAS Regulations, 1955,” the Solicitor General had clarified.

Just three days before the DPC met, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the vigilance chargesheet filed against one of the eight HCS officers, Jagdeep Dhanda. In his petition, Dhanda alleged that he was wrongly implicated in the case, and that the chargesheet — filed 18 years after the FIR was registered — was motivated by extraneous and mala fide considerations.