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).

ORDER :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. Facts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is working as a Head Constable in the respondent Department. In the year 2024, the Departmental Promotion Committee initiated promotion proceedings for promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector. Name of the petitioner was also considered in the said promotion proceedings. However, when merit list of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector was published on 17.04.2024, petitioner’s name was not recommended for promotion on the ground that an inquiry by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is stated to be pending against him. Pursuant to recommendation of eligible candidate for promotion, order dated 21.10.2024 was issued promoting other Head Constables to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, excluding name of petitioner. Aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in the list of promoted persons, petitioner submitted representation to the concerned authority. However, as no favourable response was received, he approached this Court by filing present writ petition seeking following reliefs:

“1. Kindly call for the entire records of the present matter.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and include the petitioner's name in the promotion list and grant him promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector.

3. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing any order or decision that arbitrarily excludes the petitioner from the promotion process.

4. Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any further adverse action against the petitioner without due process of law.

5. Grant any other relief(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner successfully cleared departmental examination for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) and also completed requisite training as prescribed under the relevant rules. While the petitioner was otherwise fully eligible for promotion, he was called upon to appear before the Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, in connection with Mahadev App investigation, only for the purpose of making oral inquiry, consequent upon which, he was placed under suspension by the respondent- Department on the ground of an ongoing investigation against him. A preliminary enquiry proceeding was also instituted by the competent authority. Subsequently, competent authority after being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, enquiry was closed. His suspension was revoked. The period of suspension from 06.02.2024 to 21.03.2024 was also duly regularized, thereby restoring the service record of the petitioner without any adverse consequence. Despite the above, when the merit list for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector for the year 2024 was issued, name of the petitioner was not included. He draws attention of this Court to the documents filed along with the covering memo, particularly the charge sheet, to submit that the petitioner is not named as an accused in any criminal case or FIR. Merely being called by the E.D. for inquiry in connection with some registered offence, without there being any allegation or accusation against the petitioner, it cannot be construed as involvement in any offence so as to deny him his legitimate promotional benefits. Referring to Clause 11 of the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Constable to Head Constabl