Court No. - 5
Reserved on 30.07.2021 Delivered on 24.08.2021
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 864 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has assailed the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the respondent no.2-U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, by which the petitioner has been denied the promotion on the post of Sub Inspector.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 as Constable (Civil Police). Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Head Constable (Civil Police) in the year 2015. It is stated that the petitioner while posted in Deoria at Police Station Bhatani, was sent to Lucknow for V.V.I.P. duty on 17.04.2016. He returned on duty on 18.04.2016 but fell ill on the same day and was advised for 3 days rest. The petitioner, after becoming well, reported to the respondent no.3-Superintendent of Police, Deoria, who according to the petitioner, had sanctioned the leave of the petitioner and cancelled his V.V.I.P. duty by order dated 21..04.2016.
4. Surprisingly, the petitioner received a show cause notice issued by respondent no.3-Superintendent of Police, Deoria, dated 12.08.2016, regarding his absence from duty w.e.f. 18.04.2016 to 21.04.2016 and the petitioner was required to submit his reply within 15 days.
5. Pursuant to the said notice, petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 17.08.2018, however, the petitioner was given a minor punishment by order dated 28.08.2016 for deduction of his 7 days salary. According to the petitioner, another order was also passed on the same day, i.e., 28.08.2016, by which 4 days salary of the petitioner was not paid on the principle of “No work no pay”.
6. The Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow published a seniority list dated 16.08.2018 of Head Constable (Civil Police) for the purposes of promotion on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) in which the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No.1026 and seniority number of the petitioner was 17802, however, when the final list of promotion was published, the name of the petitioner was left out.
7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, preferred a Writ-A No.3219 of 2019, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 28.02.2019 with certain direction, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.
8. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, petitioner submitted several representations, last of which is dated 20.07.2019 before the authorities but no heed was paid on the same. Thereafter being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities, petitioner filed a Contempt Application (Civil) No.5000 of 2019, which was disposed of by this vide order dated 08.08.2019 with certain direction, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition.
9. Pursuant to the direction of the Court's order, Member, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow passed an order dated 11.04.2019 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the ground that prior to 5 years on the date of consideration for promotion, the petitioner was imposed minor punishment accordingly, the petitioner was not found to be fit for promotion.
10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee followed the norms set-forth for promotion by the Board. The case of the petitioner for promotion was considered and as per the record of the petitioner, he had been awarded minor punishment within 5 years prior to the date of selection in the year 2018, therefore, the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion.
11. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 11.04.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders of punishment dated 28.08.2016 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexures-5 & 6 to the writ petition) have been passed without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, those orders are illegal and non-est in law, accordingly, he submits that the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion is illegal and not sustainable in law.
12. He submits that that the sole ground for denying promotion to the petitioner is punishment awarded to him within a period of 5 years from the date of selection in the year 2018 and no other ground has been assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, accordingly, he submits that if two illegal orders of punishment are ignored, the petitioner is fully eligible for being promoted on the post of Sub Inspector.
13. Per-contra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the Departmental Selection Committee followed the norms set-forth by the Board for considering the promotion of the Head Constable to the post of Sub Inspector. He submits that it is not in dispute that there are two orders punishment dated 28.08.2016 which were in the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner never challenged those orders, accordingly, he submits that once the petitioner has acquiesced to the punishment order and has undergone the punishment, the petitioner has rightly been denied promotion as the criteria of the promotion is seniority subject to rejection of unfit.
14. He submitted that at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the punishment order dated 28.08.2016, accordingly, he submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and considered the submissions advanced by them.
16. The claim of the petitioner for promotion has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has been awarded punishment within 5 years prior to the date of his selection in the year 2018.The petitioner has not challenged those two orders dated 29.08.2016 of punishment and has acquiesced to it and has undergone punishment.
17. Once, the petitioner has acquiesced to the punishment order and has undergone punishment, he cannot be allowed to challenge the said orders after about 4 years from the date of award of minor punishment order and that too when the claim of the petitioner for promotion has been rejected on the ground of award of minor punishment by the aforesaid two orders.
18. Since, the punishment orders have not been assailed by the petitioner earlier and they were in existence at the time of consideration of claim of the petitioner for promotion, this Court is of the opinion that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not commit any error in taking into account the punishment awarded to the petitioner while considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion.
19. Accordingly, this Court finds that the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion is based on sound principle of law as the petitioner was not found suitable for the reason having acquiesced to the punishment order.
20. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
21. No order as to costs.
Order Date :-24.08.2021 NS