IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4367 of 2007
Arun Kumar Sinha & Anr.... ... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA
------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Dr. S.N. Pathak
For the Respondent No.5: Mr. J.C. to A.G.
For the Respondent No. 6: Mr. Sumir Prasad
------
8/24.2.2009
This writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing of order dated 2.8.2005/4.8.2005 passed by
Departmental Promotion Committee headed by its members
whereby and whereunder petitioner’s case for promotion to the
post of Dy. Superintendent of Police have not been considered and
found unfit for promotion to the s aid post. The further prayer is for
issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to consider the case of petitioners for promotion to the
post of Dy. Superintendent of Police from retrospective date, i.e.
the date juniors have been considered for promotion.
The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners namely, Dr. S.N. Pathak, is that even though the
petitioners were eligible and seniors still then they were not given
the promotion w.e.f. the due date. He also draws my attention to
page 23 to the writ petition, which is the selection list, giving
details of the successful candidates who were to be promoted as
Dy. Superintendent of Police and at page 24 at para-3 the
petitioners are listed at Sl. Nos. 5 and 7 and it has been indicated
that they have not been found to be eligible for promotion on the
ground that there was vigilance case going on and surprisingly at
para-3 it shows that they have been given ‘black marks’ and
‘stoppage of salary’.
In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 it has
been stated that in the D.P.C’s. meeting held on 2.8.2005 both the
officers, petitioners herein were found unfit as Vigilance Case No.
07 of 2003 was pending against them.
It has further been stated on behalf of the respondent that
their case were recommended for promotion to the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police in the General Board’s Meeting held on
2.
18.5.2007 and thus denying their rightful issue of promotion w.e.f.
2.8.2005 with the D.P.C. meeting and when the juniors were
promoted is not only illegal but unsustainable in the eyes of law.
The fact remains that such action is not only punitive but
involves civil consequences and mandatorily requires the
compliance of principles of natural justice.
The counsel for the respondent State fairly submits that no
charge-sheet has been issued till date and thus the question of
inflicting punishment of black mark and stoppage of salary does not
stand to reason and is accordingly set aside.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case
the respondents are directed to consider the case of promotion of
the petitioners w.e.f. 2.8.2005 / 4.8.2005 with all consequential
benefits.
This writ petition is accordingly allowed without any order as
to costs.
(Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.)
Sudhir/