IMPORTANT POINT
The penalty of censure does not bar promotion based on seniority-cum-merit criteria, allowing reconsideration for the post of Superintendent of Police.

ORDER :

(Farjand Ali, J.)

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for the respondents to grant him promotion on the post of Superintendent of Police (Wireless) against the vacancy of year 2008-09 and then consider his case for promotion to the post of Director, Police Telecommunication.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1985 at Police Telecommunication. He was granted promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 1994. The respondent department offered him promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (Telecommunication) vide order dated 16.11.2005, however, he forego the said promotion and communicated his non-acceptance, which was accepted vide order dated 03.02.2006. Thereafter, one Jhabbe Singh was given promotion on the said post, who superannuated in the year 2007 and then the post became vacant. As per Rule 28AA of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, if a person forgoes promotion through written request and if the concerned Appointing Authority accepts his request, the person concerned shall be debarred from consideration for promotion for subsequent two recruitment years for which the Departmental Promotion Committee is held. In pursuance of the said rule, the petitioner's case was not considered for promotion for the next two recruitment years, i.e. 2003-04 and 2007-08. The petitioner was entitled consideration of his case for promotion when the next meeting of the DPC was convened. However, in the meantime, the petitioner faced departmental proceedings which culminated into imposition of penalty of censure vide order dated 13.08.2009. The petitioner faced another departmental proceedings, in which he was subjected to penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments vide order dated 16.02.2012. Due to pendency of the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was not accorded promotion in the DPC for the year 2008-09 and 2014-15. Being aggrieved of imposition of penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9307/2012 before this court, wherein vide order dated 28.03.2014, the order imposing penalty was set aside. The petitioner came to be superannuated w.e.f. 31.07.2017. After his retirement, he was accorded promotion as Superintendent of Police (Wireless) vide order dated 26.02.2020 against the vacancies of the year 2015-16. The case of the petitioner is that since the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments has been set aside by this court and the penalty of censure would not come in the way of promotion in his case, therefore, instead of vacancy of 2015-16, he is entitled for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (Wireless) for the vacancy of recruitment year 2008-09 after being debarred from promotion in previous two DPCs held for the years 2003-04 and 2007-08. Challenging the action of the respondents in denying him promotion against the vacancy of the year 2008-09, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2023 and the review petition preferred against the said order has been dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2023. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court by way of filing the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of the respondents in denying the petitioner promotion from the date he became entitled is absolutely unjust, arbitrary and illegal. The sole reason for not according him promotion against the vacancy of the year 2008-09 is the penalty of censure, which was imposed upon him vide order dated 13.08.2009. Learned counsel submits that the penalty of censure would not come in the way of promotion, where the criteria for filli