In an extraordinary “judge versus court” battle, a Haryana judicial officer has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the denial of his promotion, questioning whether mere pendency of a Vigilance matter — without even a decision to chargesheet him — can be used to stall his career advancement.
Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ellenabad in Sirsa district, Prateet Singh Dhonchak, has filed a writ petition against the Punjab and Haryana High Court through its Registrar-General, alleging arbitrary and discriminatory withholding of his promotion to the post of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), despite juniors being promoted.
The matter came up before a bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, which requested senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram to assist the court as amicus curiae and fixed May 22 for further hearing.
Among other things, the petitioner’s counsel Dr MM Dhonchak has raised a series of unusually pointed questions on judicial administration, the scope of Article 235 of the Constitution, the sanctity of Full Court decisions, and the balance between institutional discipline and individual judicial independence.
The questions framed in the petition include: whether pendency of a complaint before Vigilance Disciplinary Committee (VDC) “would ipso facto render” a judicial officer unsuitable for promotion “despite the fact of the same being in utter negation of the criteria laid down by none other than the Full Court”.
The petitioner has further questioned whether an ACR remark merely stating “complaint is pending consideration of VDC” could be treated at par with “integrity doubtful”, especially when his overall grading remained “B Plus (Good)”.
The petitioner has also questioned whether “a half-baked and admittedly incomplete remark”, dependent upon the eventual outcome of Vigilance proceedings, could itself “ring a knell to the career prospects of a judicial officer”.
In perhaps the most striking part of the plea, the petitioner has questioned whether Article 235 effectively forces judicial officers to surrender dignity and independence to survive in the district judiciary. “Whether Article 235 of the Constitution of India permits that willy-nilly a judicial officer has to compromise his self-respect and dignity and play a Machiavelli par excellence and there is almost a refrain for him to call ‘a spade a spade’, if he has to survive as a judge in the district judiciary?” the petitioner has asked.
He has also questioned: “Whether an administrative judge while being in a patently chasing mode to settle scores with a judicial officer is allowed to travel beyond his jurisdiction if he fails to obtain any material to put such a conscientious and intrepid Judge on the mat with regard to any matter within the jurisdiction of Sessions Division allotted to him by the Chief Justice?”
Giving details, the petitioner has alleged that the action against him stemmed from a motivated campaign by the then administrative judge of Karnal Sessions Division. It claims the petitioner was threatened with being shown the “yellow slip” and was later left to watch events “progressing towards culmination of the threat”.
The officer has also raised questions on institutional decision-making within the high court, including whether the Chief Justice alone could rescind a full court decision and whether “the decision of a collective body can be undone by a single member of that collective body”.
Going into the background of the natter, Dhonchak has submitted that the petitioner joined judicial service in Haryana on November 28, 2013. But officers, junior to him in the same batch, were promoted through order dated April 26 and August 8, 2025.
The plea further states the full court criteria adopted on May 29, 2024, required at least two “B Plus (Good)” gradings in the preceding five years for promotion as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). The petitioner filled the benchmark, having earned multiple “B Plus” gradings and even “A-Very Good” for one assessment year.
The only impediment cited against him, according to the plea, was an entry in the integrity column of the 2022-23 ACR stating: “complaint is pending consideration of VDC”. The petitioner has contended that the full court criteria disqualified only those officers against whom “integrity doubtful” remarks existed and not officers facing pending complaints.
The plea adds even the administrative judge allowed him to file representation against the ACR remarks after finalisation of Vigilance proceedings, thereby indicating the remarks themselves had not attained finality.
The petitioner insists there exist “no rule/procedure/law/regulation/precedent” permitting withholding of promotion merely because a disciplinary matter was pending before the VDC. It adds that even charge sheeting by the VDC would not by itself attain finality until consideration by the full court.
The petitioner has also challenged the rejection of his representation against withholding of promotion. He claims his plea was declined by the Chief Justice without a speaking order and has questioned whether Article 235 dispenses with the requirement of reasoned decisions affecting service rights of judicial officers.
