Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 5290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J
Jia Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
CWPOA No. 6996 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sohail Khan
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, DAG
Promotion cannot be granted retroactively if eligibility was compromised by prior disciplinary actions.
Headnote:(A) Promotion rules in the Himachal Pradesh Police Department - Rule 13.9 (2) - Petition challenging denial of promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) based on adverse remarks in ACRs - Promotion can only be granted post clearance of disciplinary action and meeting qualifications. (Paras 1, 10, 21)
(B) Legal principles regarding promotion criteria - An individual cannot claim promotion retrospectively on grounds of expunged adverse remarks if eligibility was hindered by prior disciplinary proceedings. (Para 20)
(C)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought promotion from 1999, denied due to adverse ACRs, which were later expunged. The petitioner was charged with misconduct resulting in a reduction in service benefits instead. (Paras 1-22)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded the denial of promotion was justified on the basis of ongoing disciplinary proceedings at the time qualifications were met. (Paras 20-21)
Issues: Whether the expunging of adverse remarks warrants retrospective promotion of the petitioner to ASI from when his juniors were promoted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that the rules governing promotion and ongoing disciplinary matters must be adhered to uphold integrity and standards.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. adverse remarks affected promotion eligibility. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. disciplinary actions led to reduced service benefits. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. promotion eligibility governed by qualification timing. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. recognition of promotions hindered by prior misconduct. (Para 16 , 17 , 20) |
| 5. court determined no merit for retrospective promotion claim. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
Satyen Vaidya, Judge :
The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“i) That impugned order annexure A-5 dated
7.11.2015 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to promote the applicant as ASI with effect from the year 1999 when his juniors as mentioned in detailed representation, annexure a-4, were
promoted as ASI with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc. etc. in the interest of justice and fair play with further direcPtions to modify order dated 5.11.2013 whereby applicant has been promoted notionally with effect from
26.7.2012 as ASI.”
2. The petitioner was iniftially appointed as constable in the Himachal Pradesh Police Department on 21.4.1980. He was promoted to the rank of Head Constable w.e.f. 8.6.19u87.
3. The peotitioner became due for Intermediate School CoursCe (for short, “ISC”) and promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in the year 1999, however, the petitioner was not recommended for ISC for the reason that the ACR entry of the petitioner for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998 carried adverse remarks. Resultantly, the petitioner was also not considered for promotion to the post of ASI, whereas his juniors were promoted in the year
1999.
4. The petitioner was recommended for ISC w.e.f. 1.7.2002 after the cessation of currency of period of adverse remarks in the ACRs. The petitioner qualified the ISC in 2003.
5. The petitioner had assailed the adverse remarks in his ACRs for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998 in service appeal but remained unsuccessful.
6. Thereafter, the petitiooner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of original application. On abolition of the Tribunal, the original application was transferred to the files of this Court. While disposing of the petition of the petitioner, the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter on the basish of observations made in the order.
7g. In compliance to the orders passed by this Court, the matter was reconsidered and vide order dated 31.12.2009, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, the adverse remarks in the ACRs of the petitioner for the period 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1998 were ordered to be expunged.
8. In the meanwhile, on 23.3.2003, an accused had escaped from the custody of the petitioner and two other police officials. The petitioner faced departmental proceedings, which resulted in an order of punishment of dismissal from service. The punishment order was passed on 26.7.2007.
9. The service appeal of petitio ner was allowed to the extent of reduction of punioshment and instead of dismissal from service, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of forfeiture of five years approved service permanently vide order dated 8.8.2008.
10. The petitioner was promoted to the post of ASI vide order dated 5.11.2013. He was granted notional benefits w.e.f. 26.7.2012.
11. The claim of the petitioner is that since, his promotion to the post of ASI was stalled on account of adverse entries in ACRs for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998, after expunction of said entries, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as ASI from the year 1999, when his juniors were promoted.
12. The petitioner made a representation but the same was rejected vide order dated 07.11.2015 (Annexure A-5), hence this petition.
13. The respondents have defended their action. It has been submitted that the petition er was selected to undergo ISC and his course ohad commenced w.e.f. 1
