Withholding Increments for Pending FIR Without Chargesheet Is Punishing Without Trial:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Arbitrary Denial of Service Benefits

“Probation Can't Be an Endless Wait – Deemed Confirmation Follows Completion of Maximum Period” – In a detailed and precedent-reinforcing judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the employer's denial of service benefits to a compassionate appointee, ruling that continuation in service after expiry of the maximum probation period results in deemed confirmation, and pending FIRs cannot become the basis for denial of increments or promotional entitlements in the absence of concluded disciplinary proceedings.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that “denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment earned for past services, solely on account of an FIR, is violative of the principles of fairness and service jurisprudence”. The Court held that neither probation status nor financial benefits can be kept suspended indefinitely in anticipation of criminal proceedings which have not reached the stage of charge.

Court Begins with Emphasis on Unfairness of Punitive Administrative Inaction

The writ petition was filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated June 13, 2024, which denied confirmation, annual increments, and ACP benefits to the petitioner, Pritpal Singh, citing a 2017 FIR by the Vigilance Bureau. No charge sheet had been issued to the petitioner in over eight years since the FIR. He had also successfully cleared the mandatory type test on March 13, 2020, a key condition in his appointment order.

At the outset, the Court noted:
“The denial of confirmation and increments on the sole ground of FIR, without a disciplinary finding or chargesheet, is legally unsustainable and violates the settled principles of service law.”

“Deemed Confirmation Flows from Employer’s Inaction” – Application of Constitutional Bench Ruling in Dharam Singh

The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on compassionate grounds on October 15, 2001, after the death of his father, with the condition of clearing a typewriting test. His probation period was fixed at two years, extendable up to three years under Rule 11 of PUNSUP's Probation Byelaws. However, no formal order confirming or discharging him was passed even after he continued in service post October 15, 2004.

Justice Brar placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1210, which ruled:

“Where the service rules fix a certain period beyond which the probationary period cannot be extended, and the employee continues in service beyond that period without a confirmation order, he shall be deemed confirmed.”

Applying this rule, the Court held:

“The petitioner’s probation, extendable up to a maximum of three years, ended on 14.10.2004. His continuation in service beyond that date, without any order of discharge, leads to the inescapable conclusion that he stands deemed confirmed in service w.e.f. 15.10.2004. The respondents' inaction cannot prejudice the petitioner's statutory right to confirmation.”

The Court noted that similarly situated employees had already been confirmed, some even with pending criminal cases, exposing the selective application of rules.

“Increment is Not a Gesture – It is a Right Earned for Past Performance” – Court Rejects FIR-Based Withholding of Increments

The employer had further denied the petitioner annual increments, despite the fact that he had passed the required type test in 2020. The only justification cited was the FIR lodged in 2017, which had not proceeded to the stage of charge.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, 2023 INSC 352, the Court recalled:

“Denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned... would be punishing a person for no fault of him. The increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently.”

Justice Brar emphasized:

“The increment earned by an employee stands as an acknowledgment of services duly rendered during the preceding period. It is a vested right accruing over the course of performance, distinct from any assessment of future conduct.”

The Court ruled that unless a concluded disciplinary proceeding results in a punishment, an FIR alone cannot justify withholding of earned increments.

“ACP and Promotions Cannot Be Kept in Suspense Due to Investigative Uncertainty” – Court Orders Consideration as Per Rules

The petitioner, having completed 4, 9, and 14 years of service, was also eligible for the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme adopted by PUNSUP in 2016. Despite this, he was denied ACP benefits and promotion opportunities.

The Court noted:

“Promotion and ACP cannot be denied in absence of concluded departmental proceedings. The pendency of an FIR, without more, does not amount to misconduct or guilt.”

Justice Brar further observed that employees junior to the petitioner had been granted promotion and ACP, and some similarly situated persons had received confirmation orders even during the pendency of criminal cases. The denial to the petitioner was therefore not just arbitrary but also discriminatory.

Court Directs Immediate Action and Restores Rights

The High Court allowed the writ petition and passed the following operative directions:

“The impugned order dated 13.06.2024 is set aside. The respondents are directed to confirm the petitioner on completion of his probation period with effect from 15.10.2004. He shall be granted annual increments from the date he cleared the type test. His case for promotion and ACP benefits shall be considered strictly in accordance with law, within three months.”

A Significant Reinforcement of Service Jurisprudence

The judgment is a compelling reminder that administrative delay, investigative uncertainty, and anticipatory punishment cannot override vested service rights. The High Court re-established that confirmation, increment, and promotion are legal entitlements that must be denied only on the basis of established misconduct, not mere suspicion.

In the realm of service law, where compassionately appointed employees often find themselves vulnerable to procedural abuses, this ruling reinforces the foundational principle:
“A pending FIR cannot become a sword that indefinitely hangs over an employee’s rights, especially where no charge is framed and no inquiry concluded.”

Date of Decision: September 23, 2025