W.P. (S) No. 6346 of 2008
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitutional of India.
-----
Ramyad Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Superintendent of Police, Palamau ... ... Respondents
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, J.C. to A.G.
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
By Court : Heard the parties.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the District Police Force,
Palamau. The petitioner on being found guilty of certain charges was
dismissed from service on 2.10.1981. The said order was challenged in
C.W.J.C. No. 107 of 1985 (R), which was disposed of on 19.7.1989
directing the Authority to take a fresh decision in the matter relating
to dismissal of the petitioner. Upon a fresh consideration, the
petitioner was reinstated in service on 26.6.1992 but the proceeding
got continued. However, the petitioner after rendering services to the
satisfaction of the Authority got retired on 1.2.1997.
It was further submitted that the petitioner before his
retirement had made representation before the Controlling Authority
to grant him 1st time bound promotion as also 2nd time bound
promotion. Upon it, the Deputy Inspector of General, Palamau Region,
Palamau vide his letter dated 11.11.1993 asked the Superintendent of
Police, Palamau to send the service book of the petitioner and also
intimation about the status of the disciplinary proceeding. Before any
decision was taken in this regard, the petitioner got retired and,
therefore, the petitioner has moved to this Court for a direction to the
Authority to grant him 1st/2nd time bound promotion, as he had been
reinstated in service from the date when he had been dismissed from
service.
A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been
stated that when the petitioner was reinstated in service, the
departmental proceeding under the order of this Court got continued
and after holding inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has found the petitioner
guilty, but no decision has been taken on the point of punishment by
the Disciplinary Authority.
Thus, it does appear that the petitioner has moved to this
Court, as during service tenure, the petitioner was not given the time
bound promotion, though under a letter, issued by the Department of
Finance, Departmental Heads were supposed to take decision in the
matter of grant of time bound promotion. However, so far the case of
the petitioner is concerned, I do find that no order on the point of
punishment has still been passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the
inquiry report, submitted by the Inquiry Officer and, therefore, before
any decision is taken, it would not be appropriate to direct the
Authority to consider the case of the petitioner relating to grant of 1st/
2nd time bound promotion.
However, the petitioner may rake up this issue if he is
exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority-Deputy Inspector of General,
Palamau Region, Palamau but at the same time, the Deputy Inspector
of General, Palamau Region, Palamau is directed to take decision in
the matter within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order and to communicate the said
order to the petitioner immediately thereafter.
With this direction, this application stands disposed of.
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 1st September, 2011
N.A.F.R./AKT