WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 669 OF 2003
[In the matter of an Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India]
.....
Ghanshyam Mishra …. …. …. …… … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Inspector General of Police, Chotanagpur Zone, Ranchi
4. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad
5. The State of Bihar
6. Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General-
of Police, Bihar, Patna …. ….. ….. …. Respondents
….
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun
For the Respondents : ----
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY
----
Amareshwar Sahay, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for
issuance of appropriate writ/ direction commanding the
respondents to consider and grant promotion to him to the post of
Inspector of Police from the date the other persons junior to the
petitioner have been granted promotion to the said post. The case
of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of
Police in the year 1976, and since then, he has not been given any
promotion except the first time bound promotion, which as given to
him after completion of 24 years of service. In the year 1989-90,
for certain charges, he was departmentally proceeded and
consequent thereto, in the year 1992, a punishment of one black –
mark was awarded to him. The grievance of the petitioner is that
though the D.G. Board constituted for considering the case of
promotion held its meeting in the year 1997, in which the case of
the petitioner for promotion was also to be considered, but the
same was not considered because of the fact that the department
did not make available his A.C.Rs. and other relevant service
records, and thereby, the petitioner’s case could not be considered
for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. Again in the year
1999, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the
2
petitioner and consequent thereto, by an order, in the year 2001,
he was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from
service. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal against the
said order of punishment. The appellate authority set aside the
order of punishment, and remanded the matter back to for fresh
enquiry. Thereafter, a fresh enquiry was held, and in that enquiry,
the petitioner was not found guilty, and he was exonerated in
September, 2003. The further grievance of the petitioner is that
though the D.G. Board sat in the year 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and
2006, but the case of the petitioner for promotion was not
considered.
Nobody appears for the State of Jharkhand, though an
affidavit has been filed by the State of Jharkhand. From which it
appears that the case of the petitioner was considered by the D.G.
Board which held its meeting on 25.2.2003, but he was not granted
promotion on that ground that his service records were not found
to be satisfactory. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner
that the D.G. Board again held its meeting on 12.8.2006 and after
considering the case of the petitioner, he was not granted
promotion on the ground that his service record were found to be
not satisfactory.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no adverse
remark was ever communicated to the petitioner by which it can be
said that his service record was found to be not satisfactory. He
has submitted that so far the punishment of awarding one black –
mark is concerned, the same was awarded to him in the year 1992,
and after expiry of the period of three years, it has lost its
significance and force, therefore, it cannot be said that the service
record of the petitioner was unsatisfactory in any manner. He
further stated that it is a well settled principle of law that if an
3
adverse remark in service record is not communicated to a
delinquent, the same cannot be taken into consideration for not
granting promotion.
In such a situation, since nobody has appeared on behalf of
the State of Jharkhand, I have left with no other option but to allow
this application. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, and the
matter is remanded back to the authorities concerned to consider
the case of promotion of the petitioner afresh, and if it is found
that there is no adverse entry in the service record of the
petitioner, then an appropriate consequential order may be issued.
If it is found that there is adverse entry in the service record of the
petitioner that must be communicated to the petitioner so that he
may be given a chance to explain the same.
With these observations and direction, this writ application
stands allowed.
(AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J.)
Jharkhand High Court,
Ranchi. Dated 26.11.2009
N.A.F.R./S.I