Anand Kumar Singh v. 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Ranchi 3. Deputy
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5612 of 2012 ------ Anand Kumar Singh ... ... … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Ranchi 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. Superintendent of Police, Garhwa ... ... ... Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
------ : Dr. S. N. Pathak, Senior Advocate : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, J.C. to A.G. ------- 02/27.11.2013 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for his promotion on the post of Inspector of Police. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under, 7. “That it is humbly stated and submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion from the post of Sub Inspector of Police to the post of Inspector of Police in the meeting held on 01.04.2010 but his case for promotion was kept pending due to the reason that Department Proceeding no. 1/2009 (date of incidence-02.05.2009) was pending against the petitioner and Rule 726 (2) of the Jharkhand Police Manual says that a person against whom departmental proceeding is pending cannot be promoted till the proceeding is pending against him. 8. That it is humbly stated and 2 submitted that the case of the petitioner was again considered in the meeting held on 28.06.2011 and the name of the petitioner stands at sl. no. 41, but as the petitioner has been awarded major punishment in Departmental Proceeding No. 1/2009 (date of incidence 12.05.2009) and in Departmental Proceeding no. 6/2010 (date of incidence 25.12.2009) he has been declared unfit for promotion. 9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that in the D.G. Board meeting held on 01.11.2012 the case of the petitioner has again been considered and the name of the petitioner stands at sl. no. 33, but due to the effect of major punishment, he was declared unfit for promotion as apart from the above said two proceedings and in one another proceeding being Departmental Proceeding no. 40/2010 (date of incidence 11.05.2010) the petitioner has been awarded major and as such he has been declared unfit for promotion in pursuance of Rule 726 (2) and (3) of the Police Manual.” 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, in terms of Rule 726 (II) (a) of the Jharkhand Police Manual, the matter for promotion of the petitioner was considered and the petitioner was found entitled for promotion however, in view of the pendency of the Departmental Proceeding No.1/2009 against him, he was not promoted. In the meantime, other two 3 departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner however, the pendency of subsequent proceedings would not be relevant for deciding the case of the petitioner in as much as, the procedure which was adopted by the respondents as envisaged under Rule 726 (II) (a) of the Jharkhand Police Manual would be complete on completion of period of 3 years from the date of occurrence in the Departmental Proceeding No. 1/2009 and therefore, subsequent initiation of proceedings against the petitioner would have no material bearing on grant of promotion to the petitioner. 5. On a perusal of the documents on record particularly, the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and Rule 726 (II) (b) and (III) of the Jharkhand Police Manual, I am of the view that the procedure which has been adopted in the case of the petitioner is just, correct and fair. During the pendency of the other two proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner subsequent to the decision of Departmental Promotion Committee, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion. Rule 726 of the Jharkhand Police Manual is extracted below: 726. I. Next below Rule - “While making selection for any promotion course or for promotion list for officers on deputation to any department in any rank, their record in that department should also be considered (see Bihar Service Code, Rule 282). Deputationists who are 4 on promotion lists, are entitled in case their juniors are promoted in the parent cadre to get the benefit of the “Next Below Rule”. II. Conduct under enquiry.- The case of an officer, whose conduct is under enquiry and who is otherwise considered in every respect fit for promotion shall be dealt with as follows:- (a) If no case has been established till the date of promotion of the officer, this shall not be stopped. If, however, enquiries are in progress regarding misconduct of the officer, one post of appropriate seniority should be kept vacant till the final disposal of the enquiry. (See Memo no. CS/M3-1062/61-623, dated 9th February, 1961 sent from Chief Secretary to all departments). (b) Where a prima facie case has been established on a preliminary investigation of the complaint and actionable material under the relevant punishments Rules, applicable to the officer concerned has been brought out and it is intended to take action against him under Rules, he should not be promoted during the pendency of such enquiry whether the allegation relates to a period before the due date of promotion or afterwards. (c) The above principle also applies for confirmation and crossing 5 Efficiency Bar. III. Disqualification for admission to a promotion list or retention thereon.- The infliction of any, major punishment in any rank within the last 3 years may ordinarily be a bar to admission in any of the promotion lists. A gap of three years is necessary after the infliction of major punishment before an officer is retained or considered or reconsidered for any promotion list. For special reasons to be recorded, this disqualification may be relaxed by the competent officer who gives the promotion.” 6. I find that under Rule 726 (II) (b) an employee should not be promoted during the pendency of an enquiry whether the allegation relates to the period before the due date of promotion or afterwards. In the present case in view of two separate proceedings besides the Departmental Proceeding No. 01 of 2009 which were subsequently initiated, the petitioner could not have been granted promotion for which his name was kept pending in the meeting held on 01.04.2010. Again, the name of the petitioner was considered in the meeting held on 28.06.2011 however, in the meantime, the petitioner was awarded major punishment in Departmental Proceeding No. 01 of 2009. I find that Rule 726 (III) provides that, infliction of a major punishment would be a bar to promotion within 6 three years from the date of infliction of the major punishment. The language of Rule 726 (III) is very clear and unambiguous. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 726, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been denied promotion. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Amit/N.A.F.R (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)