1. Heard Mr.K. B. Pujara for the petitioner and Mr.H.K. Patel, learned AGP for respondent No.1.
2. It emerges from the petition that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of delaying / withholding or denying the promotion to the petitioner without conveying any reason for the said action.
3. The relief prayed for by the petitioner in present petition reads as under :
"(a) To direct the respondents to forthwith consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Police Inspector, Class-II and to give him the promotion as Police Inspector, Class-II with all the consequential benefits of deemed date and others as if he was granted such promotion along with his juniors by the order dated 21.2.2012 passed by the respondent as per Annexure-D;
(b) To quash and set aside the illegal action of the respondents in delaying / withholding the petitioner's promotion to the post of Police Inspector, Class-II only on the ground of imposition of punishment of reduction to the lowest basic pay for a period of 6 months without future effect, which punishment period is already over in December,2010;
(c) to quash and set aside the impugned order of promotion dated 21.2.2012 as per Annexure-D in so far as and to the extent to which the petitioner is superseded due to the promotions granted to his juniors by the said order;"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was promoted in 1998 to the post of Police Sub Inspector and since then he is holding the said post. It is also claimed that since then the petitioner is due for promotion for the post of Police Inspector. The said promotion is delayed / withheld or denied for many years without informing the petitioner the reason of delay or withholding of promotion. The petitioner has mentioned that petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 16.10.2008 and departmental proceedings were initiated and conducted against the petitioner in pursuance of the said charge-sheet. He has also mentioned that at the end of the proceedings, order imposing penalty came to be passed on 31.3.2010 against which the petitioner had taken out departmental appeal and the said appeal came to be decided vide order dated 29.7.2010.
5. Mr.Pujara, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the order of penalty, punishment of reduction to the lowest basic pay for a period of 6 months came to be imposed on the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioner accepted the said penalty order and has not carried the said order any further after the departmental appellate authority's order. He also submitted that the petitioner has already undergone the said penalty and the period of penalty, as per the said penalty order, is over. Mr.Pujara submitted that even after the period of penalty got over, petitioner's case for promotion to the immediate higher post has not been considered despite repeated representations. He further submitted that in the interregnum, the meeting of the DPC was also convened and according to information available to the petitioner, the case of petitioner has been recommended by the DPC for promotion to higher post. However, any decision has not been taken by the competent authority. He also submitted that not only the petitioner's promotion has been delayed / withheld, but in the meanwhile more than 60 persons, juniors to him, have already been promoted despite the fact that the DPC has already recommended the petitioner's case.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is not only against the delay / withholding of the promotion, but also on the ground that any decision of the competent authority has not been conveyed to the petitioner nor any reasons for such action on part of the respondents have been conveyed to the petitioner and even his representations have remained unattended.
7. Under the circumstances, it appears that present petition can be disposed of at this stage by making below mentioned order :
The competent authority shall consider the present petition as the representation on request made by the petitioner. Having regard to the order of penalty and the period which has already passed since the penalty order by the appellate authority was passed, the competent authority shall take necessary decision, while keeping in focus the recommendations of DPC, as regards the petitioner's request for promotion. The competent authority shall also convey the decision as regards the petitioner's claim for promotion to the higher post, after considering the DPC's recommendations and after considering the submission that the petitioner has already undergone the penalty and the penalty period is over since 2010-2011 and that in the interregnum many juniors have been promoted. Such decision shall be taken by the competent authority as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 10 weeks from the service of certified copy of present order. The petitioner is permitted to serve the certified copy of present order to the competent authority and copy of present petition as a written request. If the decision is against the petitioner, it would be open by the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid clarification, the present petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(K.
M. THAKER, J.) (vipul) Top