ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Rishal Singh, the applicant herein, was involved in a criminal case pertaining to FIR No.324/96 in 1996. The long and agonizing trial spread over a period of more than a decade came to an end only on 27.7.2007 when the learned ASJ, Rohini acquitted him of the charge framed against him. Meanwhile, the applicant had been suspended, but on his acquittal, vide order dated 2.11.2006 the period of his suspension was decided as spent on duty for all intent and purposes. In the interregnum, DPC for consideration of the applicant for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector was held on 16.1.1997, 6.11.1997 (review DPC), 2.12.1998, 1.9.2000, 15.3.2002, 28.3.2003 and 21.10.2004. The applicant was found fit for promotion as per his records only in the DPC which was held on 21.10.2004 and accordingly his name was admitted to the promotion list E-1 (Exe.) with effect from 21.10.2004. The recommendations of DPC, insofar as the applicant is concerned, as per rules, were each time kept in sealed cover. The only question that needs adjudication by this Tribunal in the present Application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is as to whether he is entitled to be promoted after his acquittal and when sealed cover had been opened and it was found that the applicant was at least fit for promotion as per recommendations of the DPC held on 21.10.2004, when the applicant, some time thereafter, retired from service, without undergoing the upper school course under rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980.
2. Before we may proceed any further, we would like to mention that the applicant seeks admission of his name to the promotion list E-1 (Exe.) in the DPC held on 16.1.1997 and consequently promotion to the post of Sub Inspector on regular basis with effect from the date when persons junior to him were promoted, with all consequential benefits. However, during the course of arguments, when the counsel representing the applicant was confronted with the position that even though sealed cover procedure might have been adopted in the case of applicant in the DPCs prior to 21.10.2004 because of pendency of criminal case against him or for his name having been brought in the secret list, but he was not found fit for promotion as per his service record as per selection criteria adopted by it, the learned Counsel confined the relief in the present Application to promotion of applicant from 21.10.2004, with all consequential benefits. We may also mention here that the applicant retired on 28.2.2007.
3. In response to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply contested the cause of the applicant. There is, however, absolutely no dispute on the facts as mentioned above. In fact, the respondents in their counter reply have reiterated the material facts in the same manner as have been set out in the Application, even though with some more details.
4. The only discordant view expressed by the respondents either in the pleadings contained in the counter reply or in the submissions made by Shri Luthra during the course of arguments in opposing the claim of the applicant is that for actual promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, one has necessarily to undergo the upper school course, which the applicant had not undergone and his mere admission in promotion list E-1 (Exe.) would not entitle him for promotion to the post under contention. We would have dealt with this issue in the context of the facts and circumstances of this case and rule 16 of the 1980 Rules aforesaid, but since the matter is no more res integra, there would be no need to go into the same. This Tribunal while dealing with a similar controversy in OA No.1186/2002 Bishamber Dayal v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. decided on 31.12.2002, held that It is without doubt that had the applicant not been dismissed due to the conviction, which was considered to be wrongful by the Hon’ble High Court, he would have continued in service and, therefore, received his opportunity, to attend the Upper School Course in accordance with his seniority, and duly promoted. Now that the applicant has retired, it would be unfair to ask him to pass that course. In fact, his reinstatement was very shortly before his ultimate superannuation and at that late age he could not be expected to pass a course being kept out of duty for nearly 15 years. We find no justification in refusing him this benefit, which is definitely a part of consequential benefits that he should have received. The only difference on facts in the present case and the one subject matter of the OA aforesaid, is that whereas in the present case the applicant on his involvement in a criminal case was not dismissed, it appears that in OA No. 1186/2002 the applicant was dismissed from service, which order was set at naught on his acquittal from the High court. A similar view was taken by this Tribunal in OA No. 2682/2002 decided on 27.8.2003 in the matter of Sat Narain v. Additional Commissioner of Police and Ors. wherein the department filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.1949/2004 before the Delhi High Court. The High Court confirmed the view taken by the Tribunal and the writ was dismissed. The short order passed by the High Court in the matter referred to above reads as follows:
Respondent was brought on promotion list E-1 on 25th September, 1992 for promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector (Executive). He was not, however, promoted because of pending disciplinary proceedings in which he was awarded punishment of reduction of pay. He appealed against it and also sought voluntary retirement which was granted in 1998. After his representation failed to elicit any response he filed OA No.2682/2002 which was allowed by the Tribunal by impugned order dated 27th August, 2003 directing petitioners to consider his case for promotion.
Petitioner’s case in his petition is that respondent was not eligible to be promoted as he had not undergone pre promotion course under Rule 16 of Delhi Police Promotion and Confirmation Rules. Tribunal has rightly held that this condition cannot be enforced against him now after his retirement. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
On facts, the applicant in Sat Narain (supra) was not promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him in which he was awarded punishment of reduction of pay, which order, on appeal, was set aside.
5. In view of the discussion made above, this Application is partly allowed. Direction is issued to the respondents to consider promotion of the applicant on the post of Sub Inspector w.e.f. 21.10.2004 when the DPC held him fit for promotion. The Application is allowed with consequential reliefs as may be admissible to the applicant under rules. It goes without saying that one of the consequential reliefs would be to retire the applicant from the post of Sub Inspector and work out his post-retiral dues accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs.