Withholding increment on mere FIR registration unjustified: HC

Holding that an increment is a vested right earned for services already rendered, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that it cannot be withheld merely because an FIR has been registered against an employee. The court clarified that registration of an FIR did not establish misconduct or guilt, and withholding increment on such a tentative basis would amount to punishing an employee without due process.

The Bench asserted that only a duly adjudicated penalty imposed after a formal disciplinary proceeding could justify withholding of increment. It stressed that procedural fairness must be maintained to prevent arbitrary deprivation of an employee’s earned benefits, as increments acknowledge past performance and are distinct from future conduct.

The court added that the balance of law and equity required that earned increments remained protected unless a lawful punishment was imposed following due disciplinary process.

“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. Observing the procedural safeguards, the mere registration of an FIR does not equate to misconduct or guilt but serves only as a marker of a future investigation whose outcome remains uncertain,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted.

The ruling came on a petition filed by a clerk with the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP). He had approached the High Court through counsel Padamkant Dwivedi and Mehak Singh contending that he was appointed on compassionate grounds in 2001 following the death of his father and had successfully completed three years of service, entitling him to confirmation under the service byelaws of PUNSUP.

It was further contended on the petitioner’s behalf that he cleared the prescribed type test on March 13, 2020, and thus became entitled to annual increments. However, his claim was rejected solely due to the pendency of the FIR, despite no charge-sheet having been issued to him. It was further pointed out that several employees junior to him had been promoted and confirmed even though criminal cases were pending against them.

The respondent-Corporation failed to controvert the fact that the petitioner had continued in service and no disciplinary proceedings or punishment had been initiated against him on account of the FIR. In view of these findings, the Bench allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order dated June 13, 2024. The court directed the competent authority to grant the petitioner annual increments from the date he had passed the type test. It further ordered that he be confirmed on completion of his probation period and that his case for promotion and consideration under the ACP scheme be examined in accordance with law.

The court directed that the needful be done within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.