Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, M. GOVINDARAJ, JJ.
T. Joy Thomas - Appellant
Vs.
The Director General, Directorate of Central Reserve Police Force & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 386 of 2010
Decided On : 04-01-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Md. Ibrahim Ali
For the Respondents: Dr. D. Simon
Pendency of disciplinary proceedings is a bar for promotion, and the interpretation of the term 'censure' in the context of promotion disputes is crucial.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Promotion Dispute - CRPF Act, 1949, Section 11(1) - 8/94 - The court discussed the provisions of the CRPF Act, 1949, particularly Section 11(1), and the implications of the approved list 8/94 in relation to the promotion of Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors of Police. The court also considered the impact of disciplinary proceedings on promotion and the interpretation of the term 'censure' in the context of the appellant's promotion dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to promote him as Inspector of Police, CRPF, as per the approved list 8/94, dated October 1996, following a disciplinary proceeding and subsequent censure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's promotion was rightly denied due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, as per the provisions of the CRPF Act, 1949. The court also held that the punishment of censure, as modified, did not affect the appellant's promotion retrospectively.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the CRPF Act, 1949, the implications of the approved promotion list 8/94, and the impact of disciplinary proceedings on promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that pendency of disciplinary proceedings is a bar for promotion, as per established legal principles. The court also clarified the meaning of 'censure' and its implications on promotion.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's promotion dispute was not upheld.
S. Manikumar, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to an order of dismissal of W.P.No.16198 of 1999, dated 02.02.2009, by which, the writ Court declined to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to promote the appellant, as Inspector of Police, CRPF, as per the approved list, 8/94, dated October, 1996, with all monetary benefits.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 08.12.1988, he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police, in the Central Reserve Police Force (In short, "CRPF") and worked in several stations. During October' 1996, an approved list "E" (GD) vide 8/94, was prepared, for the purpose of promoting Sub-Inspectors of Police, to the post of Inspectors of Police. In the said list, the appellant was placed at Sl.No.3. However, the appellant was issued with a charge memo, dated 25.09.1996, in terms of section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. After completion of enquiry into two charges, relating to disobedience of the orders of the superior, on 13.02.1998, the appellant was imposed with a fine of one month pay and allowances. On appeal, the Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Southern Sector, Hyderabad, 2nd respondent herein, vide order, dated 23.11.1998, has modified the punishment of fine into one of censure. The appellant has made a representation, dated 10.5.1999 to the Director General, CRPF, New Delhi, 1st respondent herein, stating that his juniors have been promoted from the approved list 8/94 and whereas, because of censure, he was not given the promotion. According to him, the representation remained unanswered. Hence, he filed W.P.No.16198 of 1999, for the reliefs, stated supra.
3. Before the writ Court, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Avadi, Chennai, third respondent herein, has filed a counter affidavit, contending inter alia that the appellant was not promoted, due to pendency of a departmental enquiry and on conclusion, he was not exonerated of the charges, but imposed with a punishment of censure.
4. The third respondent has further submitted that the Director General, vide letter No.P.VIII.1/95-Estt-II, dated 24.07.1995, has clarified that the personnel, who were brought on approved list, but not promoted, due to pendency of departmental enquiry against them, on conclusion of departmental enquiry, if they were not exonerated of the charges, levelled against them, they shall not be promoted on the basis of the recommendations of the earlier DPCs (approved list) and such personnel shall be permitted to appear in the respective approved list in the first available opportunity.
5. It was the further contention of the 3rd respondent that the Director General, vide letter No.P.VII.10/98-Estt-II (P/Cell), dated 18.05.1998, cancelled the allotment order, dated 16.10.96 and signal, dated 5.12.1996 (by which, the appellant was allotted on promotion as Inspector) and further directed to take necessary action, as per the instructions, contained in the Director General's letter No.P.VIII.I/95-Estt-I, dated 24.7.1995. Accordingly, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Chennai, 3rd respondent herein, vide O/o.No.P.VII.II/98-CO, dated 03.06.1998, removed the appellant from the approved list E(GD) - 8/94.
6. The 3rd respondent herein further contended that the appellant appeared in approved list (E/GD)-2/99 afresh and passed the promotion test. The Director General, vide letter, dated 15.3.1999, has promoted the appellant and he was allotted to 58 Bn, on promotion as Inspector of Police. The appellant joined 58 Bn, on promotion on 13.4.1999.
7. After considering the rival submissions, the writ Court, vide order, dated 02.02.2009, dismissed the writ petition, as follows:-
"5. It is also stated that as against the punishment of censure, the petitioner's appeal preferred to the first respondent was forwarded, vide endorsement, dated 17.9.1999 and the case was under consideration of the first respondent. It is not clear, as to what had happened to the said
