The main legal point established in the judgment is that the promotion cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee, as per the Sealed Cover Procedure and the principles laid down in the judgments of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Union of India vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to G.P. III, appearing for the respondents-State.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 1854/P dated 10.08.2015 [Annexure-10], by which, the prayer of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with retrospective effect has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has been superannuated. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to give the promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date, juniors of the petitioner were granted promotion. Further the prayer has also been made for a direction to forthwith provide the benefits of 2nd ACP to the petitioner with effect from 15.06.2008, as decision of the authority is in favour of the petitioner, however, till date the fruit of that has not been provided to the petitioner.

3. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed at Sub-Inspector of Police on 15.06.1984 and he was subsequently promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the month of August, 1995, and thereafter he was posted at several places in the erstwhile State of Bihar. He submits that the petitioner stands at Serial No. 40 in the seniority list prepared for the police inspectors in the year 2010. He further submits that the persons, who were juniors to the petitioner in the gradation/seniority list of the year 2010, have been considered for promotion on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He further submits that the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 26.10.2010, on the ground that he was facing the criminal case, in which, he was convicted. He further submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by the judgment of the High Court and in that view of the matter, the petitioner was reinstated in service with effect from 27.12.2012 by the order of the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand. He also submits that in the reinstatement order, it has been recorded that the Director General of Police is free to initiate/dispose of the departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner was chargesheeted departmentally in the year 2003 and identical allegation has been levelled against him, which has been the facts of criminal case. He further submits that since the petitioner was convicted in the month of December, 2005 and thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 70 of 2006, before the Jharkhand High Court. He further submits that the respondent authorities allowed the petitioner to continue in suspension in view of Rule 847 of the Jharkhand Police Manual, however, after acquittal in the aforesaid criminal appeal, the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceeding by the order dated 04.09.2014, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition and the petitioner has superannuated w.e.f. 28.02.2014. Learned counsel further submits that by the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was suspended and the departmental proceeding was pending and on that ground, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected. He further submits that the petitioner was reinstated in the year 2012 itself and departmental promotion was conducted with regard to other colleagues of the petitioner in the year 2013, wherein the case of the petitioner has not been considered, which is in violation of Rule 726(II) of the Jharkhand Police Manual. He further submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Others, (1991) 4 SCC 109, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in view of the Police Manual and sealed cover procedure was req