Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J.
Birendra Singh Rajput, S/o Late Ram Khilawan Rajput - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Home and ors. – Respondents
WPS No. 4327 of 2014
Decided On : 15-02-2024
Promotion - Petitioner - SOP 75/97, IPC 1860, Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the petitioner's entitlement to promotion, the effect of the minor punishment imposed, and the validity of the select list. The court held that the petitioner, having been fully exonerated, is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted, and directed the respondent authorities to grant promotion to the petitioner from the back date when other selected candidates were promoted as per the select list dated 06.06.2009.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander, claiming that he had already passed the promotional process in 2009 and that the minor punishment imposed upon him had been cancelled.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been fully exonerated and was entitled to be considered for promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion despite the minor punishment imposed and the expiry of the select list.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, having been fully exonerated, is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the respondent authorities were directed to grant promotion to the petitioner from the back date when other selected candidates were promoted as per the select list dated 06.06.2009.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents in not granting promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector despite the fact that minor punishment imposed upon the petitioner in a departmental revision proceeding has been removed and further they forced the petitioner to participate in the promotional process which was to be commenced from 17.08.2014.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed in Chhattisgarh Security Force as a Constable on 13.10.1998. Thereafter, in due course of time, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 11.09.2002. In furtherance to the above, the petitioner became entitled for next promotion that is to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander/Sub-Inspector. Accordingly, the petitioner was called for physical examination in connection with such promotional process on 09.07.2008 which he clarified successfully. Subsequently, the petitioner along with other selected candidates was called for written examination on 28.08.2008. As per result dated 06.06.2009 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner successfully cleared the written examination and he was selected for Pre Promotion Course (for short P.P. Course) and after completion of which he was to be granted promotion. Despite the aforesaid result, the petitioner was not sent for P.P. Course necessary for his promotion, whereas other selected candidates including his juniors after undergoing such course were granted promotion to next higher post. However, on making much effort for being known about the reason as to why he was not sent for the P.P. Course, the petitioner was orally informed that on account of pending departmental enquiry, he was not being sent for the course concerned.
3. Earlier, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 16.04.2008 for some alleged act of misconduct for which an FIR was also lodged at Police Station Dhamtari under sections 294, 323, 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, after trial, the proceeding was culminated into acquittal of the petitioner vide order dated 18.09.2008 (Annexure P/2). For the same alleged misconduct, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 09.07.2008 (Annexure P/3), a minor punishment of stoppage of one annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, was imposed upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said punishment order, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the competent authority and the same was dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2009 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal before the respondents and the same was allowed vide order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure P/5) cancelling the order of punishment dated 09.07.2008. Earlier on 07.10.2009, petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 5881/2009, seeking interference of this Court in the matter of his promotion on the ground that the minor punishment does not come in the way of promotion. However, during pendency of the said petition earlier his departmental appeal was dismissed, but subsequently his Second Appeal was allowed in full as explained above. As a result of the order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure P/5), the order of punishment and its affirmation in departmental appeal lost its value in the eyes of law and the stand of the respondents in the reply filed in such petition that because of the imposition of minor punishment the petitioner's case could not be considered for promotion lost its sanctity completely. As a consequence, the petitioner became entitled for all the benefits. This Court vide order dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure P/6) disposed of the petition i.e. WPS No. 5881/2009 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of four months. In compliance of this Court’s ord
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner, fully exonerated from a minor punishment, is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date when his juniors were promote....
Denial of promotion based on mere inquiry without formal charges is arbitrary and violates the right to be considered for promotion under Article 16(1).
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in 2017 was justified, as it was granted after the completion of ....
Promotion cannot be denied solely based on the number of past punishments without considering their nature and timing, ensuring equal treatment under Article 14.
The penalty of censure does not bar promotion based on seniority-cum-merit criteria, allowing reconsideration for the post of Superintendent of Police.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the past services of the petitioner were not considered for promotion to the post of Head Constable as per the specified qualifying service of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
