IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah, J.
UBC 1332 Hanif Choudhury, S/o. Late Abdul Noor – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam And 2 Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C.) No.1855 Of 2021
Decided On : 08-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 468, 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common – Cheating and dishonestly – Forgery for purpose of cheating – Petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondents to consider case of petitioner for promotion to post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police when his juniors were promoted to post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and accordingly release financial benefits due to petitioner of promotion – Held, Court opinion that parity which has been sought by the learned counsel for petitioner on order cannot be made applicable to facts of instant case in as much as order – Coordinate Bench is per incuram – Court of law granting promotion to petitioner would be contrary to Office Memorandum – Writ petition so filed by which the petitioner is seeking promotion to post juniors were promoted to post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of police cannot be accorded and accordingly no writ can be passed directing respondent authorities to consider case of petitioner for promotion to post of Assistant Sub- Inspector police his juniors were promoted to post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (UB) of Police cannot be issued in present facts and circumstances of case – Petition stands disposed off.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.K. Parajuli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition seeking a mandamus thereby directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector(UB) of Police w.e.f the date when his juniors were promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector(UB) of Police and accordingly release the financial benefits due to the petitioner from the date of promotion.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that by an order dated 12/4/1992 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, Assam, the petitioner was appointed as an AB Constable w.e.f. 12.4.1992 vide D.O. No. 1246 dated 16.4.1992. After four years of service, vide an order dated 13/3/1996 the petitioner was transferred from Armed Branch to Unarmed Branch along with other persons with immediate effect against existing vacancies. The petitioner continuously worked as UB Constable since the date of his transfer from AB to UB on 13.3.1996. Subsequent thereto on 28/4/2005, the petitioner along with other persons were declared to have passed in the departmental qualifying exam for promotion to the rank of ASI of police.
4. In the meantime, in the year 2012 when the petitioner was working as the Nagaon D.E.F. a case was registered against him alongwith other persons which was registered and numbered as Nagaon P.S. Case No. 1284/2012 under Sections 420/468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR, however, has not been enclosed to the instant writ petition but from a perusal of paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, it transpires that the said case was registered against the petitioner for submission of false HSLC Pass Certificate and Mark Sheets. It further transpires from the materials available on record that the petitioner was suspended for criminal misconduct as well as for involvement in the Nagaon PS Case No. 1284/2012 vide an order dated 4/10/2012. Subsequent thereto on 21/1/2013, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon released the petitioner along with other suspended persons from suspension with immediate effect in view of the shortage of man power for the Panchayat Elections 2013. It also transpires from the records that vide an office order dated 24/6/2013, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, in pursuance to the order dated 10/6/2013 by the Additional Director General of Police (TAP), Assam, the petitioner along with other persons of the UBC of Nagaon D.E.F. were deputed to report before the Principal, PTC, Dergaon for undergoing the 38th Batch Pre Promotion Cadre Course w.e.f. 24/6/2013 for a period of 12 weeks. The said promotional cadre course of the UB constable was duly held at PTC, Dergaon with effect from 24/6/2013 to 30/9/2013 and the petitioner along with other persons were declared passed and the name of the petitioner was duly reflected at Serial No. 66.
5. Subsequent thereto on the basis of an order dated 13/2/2015 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, it was notified that the departmental proceedings No. 7/2012 which was initiated against the petitioner was disposed off and a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect for his indiscipline conduct being a member of the discipline police department was imposed. However, the period of suspension have been treated to be on duty.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal against the order dated 13/2/2015 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Assam which was registered and numbered as C.R./57-NGN/2021/286. The said appeal which was pending at the time of the filing of the writ petition was subsequently disposed off vide an order dated 15/3/2021 whereby the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide an order dated 15/3/2021 found that the charges framed against the petitioner was beyond any reasonable doubt and deserved
The court highlighted the importance of expeditiously finalizing disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecutions and the obligation to consider ad-hoc promotion in such cases.
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).
Promotion cannot be withheld on mere pendency of an inquiry; formal charges must be issued. Denying rights based on unresolved issues is arbitrary and illegal.
Promotion in government service cannot be denied solely based on the pendency of a vigilance inquiry; a charge memo or charge-sheet must be issued for such denial to be lawful.
Denial of promotion based solely on pending criminal proceedings constitutes unjust punishment, especially when trials are unduly delayed.
Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right when a criminal case is pending against an employee, despite the right to be considered for promotion.
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 ....
Sealed cover procedure and ad-hoc promotion guidelines under DoPT OM 1992 apply to LDCE; indefinite denial of promotion due to prolonged pending criminal case without reviews is unjust; department mu....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.