Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13991 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Gopal Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition is directed against an order dated 27th June, 2016, whereby grant of first promotional pay scale under the ACP scheme has been denied to the petitioner.
Facts, which are not in dispute, are that petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector by direct recruitment on 22nd December, 2005. He has completed 10 years service in the year 2015. An application for grant of first promotional pay scale under the ACP scheme has been denied to him, on the ground that minor punishment in the form of adverse entry etc. have been awarded to petitioner on different dates, and that last of such punishment has been imposed in respect of an incident of December, 2012. The Government Order dated 30th June, 1993 has been relied upon by the respondents to contend that for a period of 05 years, the working of petitioner cannot be said to be satisfactory, from the date of imposition of minor punishment. Order impugned records that since 05 year's term would expire in December, 2017, therefore, petitioner's claim for grant of ACP benefit can be considered only thereafter.
The order is challenged in this writ petition, primarily on the ground that none of censure entries awarded to petitioner, which has been relied upon to non-suit him, has ever been served upon him. Submission is that such entry, therefore, could not have been looked into for the purposes of denial of ACP benefit. It is also stated that by virtue of Government Order, the entire service record of the petitioner was liable to have been considered. It is also stated that petitioner's entry in his service record has been satisfactory and highly satisfactory, and therefore, on the basis of such service record, the respondents cannot term the petitioner's 10 years service to be unsatisfactory, so as to deny him benefit of ACP.
Learned Standing Counsel with reference to para 21 of the writ petition has placed reliance upon para 6 of the counter affidavit. The specific averment made in para 21 that none of the adverse entry was ever communicated to the petitioner, however, has not been denied. What is stated by the respondents is that petitioner's claim for grant of ACP can be considered after December, 2017.
Service conditions of petitioner are to be regulated, in accordance with the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 5(2) as well as Rule 14(2) would be relevant for the present purposes, and are reproduced hereinafter:-
"5.(2) The cases in which minor punishments enumerated in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule-4 may be awarded, shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (2) of rule-14.
14.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) punishments in cases referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 may be imposed after informing the police officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of act or omission on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal."
Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1991 clearly provide that punishments in cases referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 may be imposed after informing the police officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of act or omission on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. Once it is admitted on record that such order has not been intimated to the petitioner, this Court finds substance in the grievance of petitioner that such adverse material could not have been relied upon against the petitioner to deny him benefit of ACP. The object of Rule 14(2) is to give a reasonable opportunity to a police officer to represent against any adverse action that may be taken against him. Denial of an opportunity in that regard would be clearly contrary to Rule 14. The consequence of such a denial would be that such adverse material cannot be relied upon by the respondents to deny benefit of ACP to petitioner. The service of petitioner, therefore, cannot be termed to be unsatisfactory merely on account of such adverse entries, which have not been intimated to petitioner. Consequently, the order passed by Superintendent of Police, Railways, Allahabad, dated 27th June, 2016 cannot be sustained and is quashed.
A direction is issued to the respondents to pass a fresh order with regard to grant of first promotional pay scale under the ACP scheme to petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Any adverse material, which has not been communicated to the petitioner, would not be treated as a material adverse to the petitioner for such purposes.
Writ petition, accordingly, is allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Anil