SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(HP) 298

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Bhupinder Pal Son Of Shri Param Dev – Appellant
Versus
State Of H.P. Through Secretary(Home) Govt. of H.P. Shimla – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) No.2887 of 2019
Decided on : 17-06-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. Ajeet Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate

Point of Law: Adverse entries relating to specific incidents should ordinarily not find a place in ACR, unless in the course of departmental proceedings, a specific punishment such as censure has been awarded on the basis of such an incident.

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 13(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 201, 212, 217 and 120-B - Departmental proceedings - Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender and Criminal Conspiracy - Petition at hand, petitioner had filed CWP in this Court, laying therein challenge to order which, the respondents again initiated departmental inquiry after acquittal of petitioner in criminal case - Adverse entry relating to specific incidents should ordinarily not find a place in ACR, unless in course of departmental proceedings, a specific punishment such as censure has been awarded on basis of such an incident. Since in case at hand though at first instance there is/was no requirement, if any, for Reporting Officer to take note of registration of corruption case in ACR being solitary incident but even if same was recorded, same cannot be allowed to sustain for the fact that no punishment ever came to be awarded to the petitioner in criminal as well as in departmental proceedings. (Para 25)

Finding of the Court :

Though, the personal opinion recorded by Superintendent of Police in remarks column is of no consequence, but even otherwise same is based upon fact that accused was charged with the corruption case as has been recorded in remarks column. Otherwise also, approach adopted by authorities against petitioner while deciding his representation is not free from bias because no cogent and convincing reasoning has been assigned for not accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, rather by stating that then Superintendent of Police had personal knowledge with regard to conduct of petitioner, efforts has been made to defeat rightful claim of the petitioner, to which he has become entitled after his being honourably acquitted in criminal case vide judgment - Since in case at hand though at first instance there is/was no requirement, if any, for Reporting Officer to take note of registration of corruption case in the ACR being solitary incident but even if same was recorded, same cannot be allowed to sustain for fact that no punishment ever came to be awarded to the petitioner in criminal as well as in departmental proceedings.

Result: Petition allowed

ORDER :

In the year 1983, petitioner was initially appointed as constable with the respondent-Department and was promoted to the post of A.S.I. on 14.07.2000. While he was posted as ASI in the office of Superintendent of Police, Kullu, FIR was lodged on 13.6.2005 against a foreigner namely, Kozi Tateno (Japanese) and the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 201, 212, 217 and 120-B of IPC. Department after having placed the petitioner under suspension on 13.06.2005 initiated departmental inquiry. Inquiry Officer submitted the report stating therein that since the criminal case has been registered against the petitioner, he should not be proceeded departmentally on the same set of charges. Aforesaid report of inquiry was accepted by the Commandant, 1st Indian Reserve Battalion, Mangarh, District Una on 29.1.2007 vide Annexure P-2. Subsequently, petitioner was acquitted in corruption case vide judgment dated 22.08.2008/23.08.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.(Annexure P-1). After acquittal of the petitioner in criminal proceedings, departmental inquiry was initiated on 16.6.2005 against the petitioner on the same set of charges. Interestingly, respondent No.3 after hounourable acquittal of petitioner in criminal proceedings, again directed respondent No.4 on 30.11.2009 to hold fact findings inquiry that in what manner pass port was handed over to Kozi Tateno. The fact finding inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, Kullu, who submitted his report on 21.1.2010. On the basis of the report of fact finding inquiry, fresh inquiry was ordered to be instituted against the petitioner on 9.4.2010. However, same was withdrawn on 4.5.2010 and thereafter again fresh inquiry was instituted against the petitioner on 3.6.2010. However, petitioner was again absolved by the inquiry officer on 6.6.2011. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 28.10.2011, wherein name of the petitioner was recommended for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, however, when the matter went for approval of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, respondent No.2 instead of approving the same, instituted fresh inquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid action of respondent No.2, petitioner herein filed writ petition bearing Civil Writ Petition No.1145 of 2012-E, praying therein for following reliefs:

    “i). That the impugned order dated 22.2.2012 contained in Annexure P-13 vide which the respondent No.2 has ordered for fresh departmental inquiry may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

ii). That the respondents may be directed to expunge the adverse entry in ACR which was entered due to court case in the year 2006 as the petitioner has now been acquitted form the charges by the competent court of law as well as by the departmental inquiry.

iii) That the respondents may be directed to grant the all service benefits which has wrongly been withheld by the respondents due to the court case.”

3. This Court vide judgment dated 7.5.2013 quashed and set-aside the order of fresh inquiry issued by respondent No.2 and directed the respondents to accord the necessary approval to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 28.10.2011 to promote the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector from due date with all the consequential benefits. In terms of aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court petitioner though was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector, but with effect from 22.5.2010, whereas he was entitled to such promotion from 17.7.2008 i.e. when he was honourably acquitted in the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

4. On inquiry, it transpired that petitioner has not been given promotion with effect from 17.7.2008 on account of adverse entry in the ACR for the period of 2005-06, wherein it stands recorded that “one criminal case is re

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  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

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top