Point of Law : Every civil servant has a right to have his case considered for promotion according to his turn and it is a guarantee flowing from Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents. None appears for the private respondents despite notice.

2. This is the second time the petitioner is before this Court. The earlier writ petition filed by him i.e. WP (C) No. 72/2017 challenging the major penalty imposed upon him and the rejection of his appeal and review petition was disposed of vide Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2017 by setting aside the said penalty and rejection orders. However, the respondents were given liberty to initiate fresh proceedings as permissible under law.

3. After the writ petition was disposed of in the above manner, a fresh proceeding was drawn up again against the petitioner but the disciplinary authority decided not to proceed any further with the denovo enquiry and discharged the petitioner from the Departmental enquiry. The major punishment imposed upon the petitioner i.e. withholding of 2 (two) years annual increment with cumulative effect was also cancelled and payment of the increment due to the petitioner was directed as well. Accordingly, vide Order dated 12.06.2018, the petitioner was granted his increment. The petitioner, thereafter, upon being recommended by the screening committee and by the Police Establishment Board for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, he was promoted vide Order dated 04.09.2018 with immediate effect.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the private respondents, who were his next juniors in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police were promoted to the post of Inspector of Police, without considering him and they have now become his seniors. According to the petitioner, since the penalty imposed upon him was set aside by this Court and that the disciplinary authority has discharged him from the Departmental enquiry and restored the increments which was withheld from him, he is entitlement to be considered for promotion from the date his next junior was considered and promoted to the post of Inspector of Police by constituting a review DPC. The representation made by him in this regard before the respondent authority concerned through proper channel on 30.09.2019 having not been considered, he is before this Court.

5. Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. WP (C) No. 72/2017 was disposed of vide Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2017 by this Court by setting aside the Enquiry Report dated 09.03.2013, the order of penalty dated 31.07.2014, the rejection of the petitioner’s appeal dated 28.10.2014 and also the rejection of the review petition of the petitioner vide Order dated 18.11.2015. Since this Court had given liberty to the respondent authorities to take up the enquiry once again as per law, an enquiry was again conducted against the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority, on being satisfied that there was no reasonable ground to proceed with any further with the Departmental enquiry, discharged the petitioner vide Order dated 16.03.2018. By the same order, the major punishment imposed upon the petitioner was also cancelled and the annual increments withheld from him were fully restored to him. He, therefore, submits that since the next junior of the petitioner was promoted on 21.07.2017, the petitioner should also be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from the date by constituting a review DPC. He, therefore, submits that a suitable direction in that regard be issued to the respondents. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities:

(1) C.O. Arumugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 199

(2) Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109

6. The learned counsel also submits that the authority relied upon by the State respondents in their counter affidavit i.e. Union of India vs. K. Krishn