Jitendra Kumar ( Constable , Pno - 112025540) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others

1. Heard Mr. Shashank Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 4th March 2025, whereby petitioner's case for promotion on the post of Head Constable for selection year 2024-25 has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted that a departmental promotion committee was held on 25th February 2025 for purposes of consideration of such promotion and a list dated 4th March 2025 (impugned list) has been issued indicating petitioner's name at serial No. 360 as being unfit for promotion on the ground that he was visited with a punishment order dated 21st April 2017 which was in vogue.

4. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the government order dated 30th June 1993, particularly paragraph 2(sa) to submit that in such cases, where a censure entry has been recorded against an employee, the same is to be taken into account only for a period of five years and not thereafter. He has also adverted to judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court in writ A No. 1766 of 2023, State of UP versus Pramod Kumar Tewari and another to submit that the aforesaid condition has thereafter been followed by this court to hold that such adverse entries would be inapplicable in cases of promotion after a period of five years. 2 WRIA No. 7728 of 2025

5. Learned counsel has also adverted to the punishment order dated 21st April 2017 to submit that the only punishment awarded to petitioner was of financial penalty amounting to seven days' salary.

6. He has also adverted to paragraph 3 (B) of the counter affidavit to submit that even in the conditions indicated therein, such a punishment would be inoperative for purposes of consideration for promotion after a period of five years and even otherwise for a maximum period of five years and would be applicable only for the period for which the punishment has been awarded. It is therefore submitted that since the departmental promotion committee was held after more than five years of the award of such punishment, the same was required to be ignored.

7. Learned state counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that the government order dated 30th June 1993 in fact is inapplicable in cases of promotion and is in fact applicable only in cases of confirmation in service, grant of assured career progression benefit, pensionary benefits etc. He has also adverted to paragraph 3 (B) of the counter affidavit to deny submissions of learned counsel for petitioner.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's case for promotion has been declined on the ground of the punishment order dated 21st April 2017 being effective. It is also evident that the departmental promotion committee has been held on 25th February 2025. The provisions of government order dated 30th June 1993 particularly paragraph 2 (sa) has thereafter been examined in the case of Pramod Kumar Tewari (supra) and has been made applicable with regard to promotion as well.

9. The judgment has relied upon the aforesaid provision of the government order for purposes of explanation of ‘satisfactory services’ for purposes of promotion. Subsequent government order dated 25th March 1994 has also been considered and it has been held that the censure entries shall not be considered for purposes of evaluating satisfactory service of the employee concerned after a period of five years in terms of paragraph 2 (sa) of the government order dated 30th June 1993. It has also been held that such single solitary censure or adverse entry is to be ignored for purposes of 3 WRIA No. 7728 of 2025 promotion in case an employee has not been visited with any other punishment in the subsequent five years. Relevant paragraphs of judgment rendered in the case of Pramod Kumar Tewari (supra) are as follows: "11. When we peruse the afore-quoted provision, what we find is that the State Government has provided that in case any censure entry is available during the period for which the relevant service record of an employee is under consideration and no other adverse entry or punishment is awarded to such an employee within five years from the date in respect of which the censure entry is available, such censure entry shall not be considered for the purposes of evaluating satisfactory service of the employee concerned, that is to say such censure entry is to be ignored.

12. Accordingly, we are very clear in our mind that in case during the period in respect of which service record of an employee is under consideration if only solitary censure entry is available which pertains to some previous period and is not coupled with any other adverse material including the adverse entry or punishment etc. awarded within five years from the incident which had resulted in award of censure, such adverse entry is to be ignored and it will have no impact so far as the assessment of the employee concerned for the purposes of determination of satisfactory service is concerned."

10. However, in the counter affidavit, the opposite parties have taken a specific plea that the government order dated 30th June 1993 would be inapplicable in cases of promotion. It appears that the aforesaid aspect was neither raised nor has been dealt with by the Division Bench in the case of Pramod Kumar Tewari (supra). Nonetheless in paragraph 3(B)(2) of the counter affidavit, the opposite parties have placed reliance on government orders and executive instructions issued by the police department pertaining to assessment of suitability of the employee and a criteria has been fixed as a standard norm for consideration of service record, particularly with regard to existence of minor punishments in the character role. The relevant portion has been quoted and is as follows: "2 - लघु शाि(cid:293)त के आधार पर (1) द(cid:276)ड का (cid:352)भाव द(cid:276)डादेश जारी होने की ितिथ से होगा। (2) - (cid:352)(cid:277)येक लघुशाि(cid:293)त हेतु द(cid:276)डादेश पािरत होने के बाद स(cid:286)प(cid:281)न होने वाले (cid:352)थम एक चयन वष(cid:259) म(cid:517) स(cid:286)बि(cid:281)धत कािमक अनुपयु(cid:472) होगा । (3)- 4 WRIA No. 7728 of 2025 यिद िकसी कािमक का िकसी िविनिद(cid:504) अविध के िलए वेतनवृि(cid:490) रोके जाने का आदेश िदया गया है तो उतनी समयाविध के िलए स(cid:286)बि(cid:281)धत कािमक अनुपयु(cid:472) होगा। उदाहरणाथ(cid:259)- यिद िकसी कािमक का 05 वष(cid:259) के िलए वेतनवृि(cid:490) रोकी गयी है तो उन 05 वष(cid:525) म(cid:517) जो भी चयन होगा उसम(cid:517) वह अनुपयु(cid:472) होगा।"

11. Upon applicability of the aforesaid paragraph in the present facts and circumstances of the case, paragraph 3(B)(2) clearly indicates that in cases of minor penalty, the same would be applicable only for the first departmental promotion committee, which is subsequent to award of such final penalty and that too it would be applicable only for the period of five years or for the period which is indicated in the punishment order itself.

12. It is thus evident even from the stand taken by opposite parties that a minor penalty is liable to be ignored after a period of five years of it being awarded.

13. In the present case, admittedly, the punishment order has been passed on 21st April 2017, whereas the departmental promotion committee has been held on 25th February 2025, which is more than five years from the date of award of punishment.

14. In view of the aforesaid government order dated 30th June 1993 as well as the stand taken by opposite parties in the counter affidavit, in the considered opinion of this Court, the opposite parties were bound to have ignored the punishment order dated 21st April 2017. Since petitioner's candidature for promotion on the post of Head Constable has been rejected only on that solitary ground, such rejection indicated by means of impugned list dated 4th March, 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari.

15. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to consider case of petitioner for promotion on the post of Head Constable ignoring the punishment order dated 21st April 2017. Such reconsideration regarding petitioner's promotion on the post of Head Constable shall take place within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority. In case petitioner is found eligible and is granted promotion, the same shall relate back to the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee on 25th February, 2025. 5 WRIA No. 7728 of 2025

16. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. December 3, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Shashank Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 4th March 2025, whereby petitioner's case for promotion on the post of Head Constable for selection year 2024-25 has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted that a departmental promotion committee was held on 25th February 2025 for purposes of consideration of such promotion and a list dated 4th March 2025 (impugned list) has been issued indicating petitioner's name at serial No. 360 as being unfit for promotion on the ground that he was visited with a punishment order dated 21st April 2017 which was in vogue.

4. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the government order dated 30th June 1993, particularly paragraph 2(sa) to submit that in such cases, where a censure entry has been recorded against an employee, the same is to be taken into account only for a period of five years and not thereafter. He has also adverted to judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court in writ A No. 1766 of 2023, State of UP versus Pramod Kumar Tewari and another to submit that the aforesaid condition has thereafter been followed by this court to hold that such adverse entries would be inapplicable in cases of promotion after a period of five years. 2 WRIA No. 7728 of 2025

5. Learned counsel has also adverted to the punishment order dated 21st April 2017 to submit that the only punishment awarded to petitioner was of financial penalty amounting to seven days' salary.

6. He has also adverted to paragraph 3 (B) of the counter affidavit to submit that even in the conditions indicated therein, such a punishment would be inoperative for purposes of consideration for promotion after a period of five years and even otherwise for a maximum period of five years and would be applicable only for the period for which the punishment has been awarded. It is therefore submitted that since the departmental promotion committee was held after more than five years of the award of such punishment, the same was required to be ignored.

7. Learned state counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that the government order dated 30th June 1993 in fact is inapplicable in cases of promotion and is in fact applicable only in cases of confirmation in service, grant of assured career progression benefit, pensionary benefits etc. He has also adverted to paragraph 3 (B) of the counter affidavit to deny submissions of learned counsel for petitioner.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's case for promotion has been declined on the ground of the punishment order dated 21st April 2017 being effective. It is also evident that the departmental promotion committee has been held on 25th February 2025. The provisions of government order dated 30th June 1993 particularly paragraph 2 (sa) has thereafter been examined in the case of Pramod Kumar Tewari (supra) and has been made applicable with regard to promotion as well.

9. The judgment has relied upon the aforesaid provision of the government order for purposes of explanation of ‘satisfactory services’ for purposes of promotion. Subsequent government order dated 25th March 1994 has also been considered and it has been held that the censure entries shall not be considered for purposes of evaluating satisfactory service of the employee concerned after a period of five years in terms of paragraph 2 (sa) of the government order dated 30th June 1993. It has also been held that such single solitary censure or adverse entry is to be ignored for purposes of 3 WRIA No. 7728 of 2025 promotion in case an employee has not been visited with any other punishment in the subsequent five years. Relevant paragraphs of judgment rendered in the case of Pramod Kumar Tewari (supra) are as follows: "11. When we peruse the afore-quoted provision, what we find is that the State Government has provided that in case any censure entry is available during the period for which the relevant service record of an employee is under consideration and no other adverse entry or punishment is awarded to such an employee within five years from the date in respect of which the censure entry is available, such censure entry shall not be considered for the purposes of evaluating satisfactory service of the employee concerned, that is to say such censure entry is to be ignored.

12. Accordingly, we are very clear in our mind that in case during the period in respect of which service record of an employee is under consideration if only solitary censure entry is available which pertains to some previous period and is not coupled with any other adverse material including the adverse entry or punishment etc. awarded within five years from the incident which had resulted in award of censure, such adverse entry is to be ignored and it will have no impact so far as the assessment of the employee concerned for the purposes of determination of satisfactory service is concerned."

10. However, in the counter affidavit, the opposite parties have taken a specific plea that the government order dated 30th June 1993 would be inapplicable in cases of promotion. It appears that the aforesaid aspect was neither raised nor has been dealt with by the Division Bench in the case of Pramod Kumar Tewari (supra). Nonetheless in paragraph 3(B)(2) of the counter affidavit, the opposite parties have placed reliance on government orders and executive instructions issued by the police department pertaining to assessment of suitability of the employee and a criteria has been fixed as a standard norm for consideration of service record, particularly with regard to existence of minor punishments in the character role. The relevant portion has been quoted and is as follows: "2 - लघु शाि(cid:293)त के आधार पर (1) द(cid:276)ड का (cid:352)भाव द(cid:276)डादेश जारी होने की ितिथ से होगा। (2) - (cid:352)(cid:277)येक लघुशाि(cid:293)त हेतु द(cid:276)डादेश पािरत होने के बाद स(cid:286)प(cid:281)न होने वाले (cid:352)थम एक चयन वष(cid:259) म(cid:517) स(cid:286)बि(cid:281)धत कािमक अनुपयु(cid:472) होगा । (3)- 4 WRIA No. 7728 of 2025 यिद िकसी कािमक का िकसी िविनिद(cid:504) अविध के िलए वेतनवृि(cid:490) रोके जाने का आदेश िदया गया है तो उतनी समयाविध के िलए स(cid:286)बि(cid:281)धत कािमक अनुपयु(cid:472) होगा। उदाहरणाथ(cid:259)- यिद िकसी कािमक का 05 वष(cid:259) के िलए वेतनवृि(cid:490) रोकी गयी है तो उन 05 वष(cid:525) म(cid:517) जो भी चयन होगा उसम(cid:517) वह अनुपयु(cid:472) होगा।"

11. Upon applicability of the aforesaid paragraph in the present facts and circumstances of the case, paragraph 3(B)(2) clearly indicates that in cases of minor penalty, the same would be applicable only for the first departmental promotion committee, which is subsequent to award of such final penalty and that too it would be applicable only for the period of five years or for the period which is indicated in the punishment order itself.

12. It is thus evident even from the stand taken by opposite parties that a minor penalty is liable to be ignored after a period of five years of it being awarded.

13. In the present case, admittedly, the punishment order has been passed on 21st April 2017, whereas the departmental promotion committee has been held on 25th February 2025, which is more than five years from the date of award of punishment.

14. In view of the aforesaid government order dated 30th June 1993 as well as the stand taken by opposite parties in the counter affidavit, in the considered opinion of this Court, the opposite parties were bound to have ignored the punishment order dated 21st April 2017. Since petitioner's candidature for promotion on the post of Head Constable has been rejected only on that solitary ground, such rejection indicated by means of impugned list dated 4th March, 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari.

15. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to consider case of petitioner for promotion on the post of Head Constable ignoring the punishment order dated 21st April 2017. Such reconsideration regarding petitioner's promotion on the post of Head Constable shall take place within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority. In case petitioner is found eligible and is granted promotion, the same shall relate back to the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee on 25th February, 2025. 5 WRIA No. 7728 of 2025

16. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. December 3, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench