Censure Penalty Not a Bar for Seniority-Cum-Merit Promotion Under Rajasthan Police Service Rules: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-05-13

Rajasthan High Court Orders Review of Police Officer's Promotion, Rules Censure Not a Bar for Seniority-Based Advancement

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court recently ruled that a penalty of 'censure' cannot impede the promotion of a police officer when the promotion criteria is based on seniority-cum-merit, rather than solely on merit. Justice Farjand Ali allowed a writ petition filed by a retired police officer, directing the state respondents to reconsider his promotion to Superintendent of Police (Wireless) effective from the vacancy year 2008-09.

Case Background

The petitioner, initially appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) in Police Telecommunication in 1985, was promoted to Additional Superintendent of Police (Addl. SP) in 1994. In 2005, he was offered promotion to Superintendent of Police (SP) but chose to forgo it for personal reasons, which the department accepted in February 2006.

Under Rule 28AA of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, forgoing a promotion debars an officer from consideration for the subsequent two recruitment years. Consequently, the petitioner was not considered for promotion during the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings for the years 2003-04 and 2007-08.

However, his consideration for the 2008-09 vacancy was hindered by pending departmental proceedings. These resulted in a 'censure' penalty in August 2009 and a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments in February 2012. The increment stoppage penalty was later set aside by the High Court in a separate writ petition in March 2014.

The petitioner retired on July 31, 2017. He was subsequently granted promotion to SP (Wireless) post-retirement in February 2020, but against the vacancies of 2015-16. Aggrieved by the denial of promotion for the 2008-09 vacancy, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal and review petition, leading him to file the current writ petition before the High Court.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner contended that denying him promotion for the 2008-09 vacancy was unjust and illegal. He argued that: * The two-year debarment period under Rule 28AA had concluded before the 2008-09 DPC. * The penalty of stoppage of increments had been quashed by the court. * The sole remaining impediment, the censure penalty imposed in 2009, should not block promotion for a post filled based on seniority and experience (seniority-cum-merit), citing precedents like Rajendra Singh Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan .

Respondents' Stance

The state respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General (AAG), maintained that their actions were in accordance with the rules. They argued that: * The petitioner was rightly debarred for two DPC cycles after forgoing promotion. * He was not considered for promotion in 2008-09 and 2014-15 due to the pendency of departmental proceedings. * Granting him promotion against the 2015-16 vacancy post-retirement was the correct procedure.

Court's Rationale and Precedents

Justice Farjand Ali examined the facts and Rule 28AA, confirming the petitioner's debarment for the 2003-04 and 2007-08 cycles. The court noted that the respondents admitted the reason for non-consideration in 2008-09 and 2014-15 was the pendency of departmental proceedings, one of which resulted in censure and the other in a penalty that was subsequently set aside.

The crucial point, the court found, was the effect of the censure penalty. Relying on established legal principles and citing Rajendra Singh Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan and Shri Ram Khilari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan , the court reiterated that censure is not an impediment to promotion where the criteria is seniority-cum-merit.

The court quoted the Division Bench finding in Shri Ram Khilari Meena :

"In view of settled position of law... even if there existed any minor penalty or some minor adverse remark... promotion could not be denied... because the criteria for promotion in this case was not entirely merit based but was on 'seniority-cum-merit' where seniority has to be given more weightage... even penalty of censure could not be a ground to deny promotion..."

Applying this principle, the court determined that the post of SP (Wireless) is filled based on seniority and experience (requiring specific qualifications and service length), not solely merit. Since the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications and experience, and the censure penalty was not a bar, he was entitled to consideration for the 2008-09 vacancy after the debarment period ended.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's orders. It directed the respondents to: 1. Review the DPC for the year 2008-09 for promotion to SP (Wireless). 2. Reconsider the petitioner's case, ignoring the censure penalty. 3. If found suitable, promote him to SP (Wireless) against the 2008-09 vacancy with all consequential benefits (including notional fixation and arrears). 4. Subsequently, review DPCs to consider his eligibility for promotion to Director, Police Telecommunication.

The respondents were ordered to comply within three months. No costs were awarded.