The scope of judicial review over DPC assessments is limited; courts will not interfere with a selection committee's discretionary evaluation of suitability unless the decision is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, or a violation of statutory rules.

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, Member (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant, who is presently serving as Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police, seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Quash and set aside the impugned order placed at Annexure A/1;

b) Direct the respondents to consider and include the applicant in List E-I by conduct of Review DPC for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014;

c) Further consider and promote the applicant as Sub Inspector by inclusion of his name in List E-II, with training completion deemed to be from the date of completion of training of his juniors and counterparts and grant promotion be granted accordingly with all consequential benefits;

d) Award costs of the proceedings; and

e) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was initially appointed as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police in the year 1977. During the course of his service, he earned promotions on merit and ultimately reached the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (Executive).

3. It is submitted that the next promotional post in the hierarchy is that of Sub Inspector (Executive) and promotion to the said post is governed by Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980.

4. As per the said Rules, a confirmed Assistant Sub Inspector with a minimum of six years of service is eligible to be considered for inclusion in List E-I. Such inclusion is based on the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Thereafter, the officers included in List E-I are sent for the Upper School Course, subject to medical fitness, and upon successful completion of the course their names are brought on List E-II, after which promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector is granted subject to availability of vacancies.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the three DPCs in question, namely the DPC dated 14.12.2012 for the year 2012–13, the DPC dated 20.09.2013 for the vacancy year 2013–14 and the DPC dated 20.10.2014 for the vacancy year 2014–15, declared the applicant unfit. According to the counsel, in all the aforesaid DPCs the applicant was rendered unfit on the ground that a major penalty had been imposed upon him vide order dated 27.01.2010, which was treated as a punishment involving moral turpitude.

6. Counsel submitted that this fact came to the knowledge of the applicant only through the order dated 07.05.2015, passed by the respondents on the applicant’s representation dated 11.12.2014, which order has been impugned in the present OA.

7. Counsel further submitted that the impugned order also reveals that upon the imposition of the penalty vide order dated 27.01.2010, the name of the applicant was transferred from the Agreed List to the Secret List of Doubtful Integrity.

8. It is submitted that on account of the aforesaid penalty order, the applicant’s name remained in the Secret List, and the DPC treated the penalty as one awarded on the ground of moral turpitude. Consequently, the applicant was denied the opportunity for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector.

9. Learned counsel placed heavy reliance upon the provisions of Standing Order No. A-44 (previou