Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1727 (PNJ)

Inspector Kuldip Singh v. State Of Punjab

2008-10-15

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, RAJAN GUPTA

body2008
Judgment Rajan Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner, who is working as an Inspector in the Punjab Police, has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing an order dated 15th October, 2004, the operative part of which is reproduced below :- "In the light of the above stated facts, it is very clear that the orders issued earlier were not in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules/Govt. Instructions. Therefore, the orders issued vide No 11197/E-6 dated 23.5.2000, No. 30865/ E-1 dated 30.11.2000, No. 32004-22/A-1 dated 21.11.2001 (issued by DIG PR Patiala) and No. 11724/E-1 dated 22.4.2003 are hereby withdrawn with immediate effect and Inspr. Kuldip. Singh No. 725/W is placed to his substantive rank of ASI in Wireless Wing with immediate effect. He is also repatriated to his parent unit i.e. Wireless Wing. He will also get his promotion as per seniority and merit in his parent cadre i.e. Wireless Wing. He may be relieved immediately with the direction to report to IGP Computer and Telecommunication Punjab, Chandigarh for his new place of posting under intimation to quarters concerned. In compliance with the above directions, the following orders issued vide this office are hereby withdrawn :- Entry to promotion iist E-ll (Exemptee) order issued yide No. 32515-20/A-1 dated 30.11.2000. 2. Promotion as Offg. Sub. Inspr. w.e.f. 28.9.2001 order issued vide No. 32004-22/A-l dated 21.11.2001. 3. Grant of promotion list "F" (Executive) and promotion as Inspector order issued vide Mo. 14813-19/A-l dated 25.4.2003. As such Inspr. Kuldip Singh No. 725/W (now 177/PR) is placed to his substantive rank of ASt-in Wireless Wing with immediate effect. He will also repatriated to his parent unit i.e. Wireless Wing. He will also get his promotion as per his seniority and merit in his parent cadre i.e. Wireless Wing. He may be relieved immediately with the direction to report to IGP Computer and Telecommunication, Punjab, Chandigarh for his new place of posting under intimation to quarters concerned. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala." 2. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Punjab Police on 1st August, 1977. He was promoted as Head Constable on 7th July, 1989 and thereafter as Assistant Sub Inspector on 1st September, 1988. In the year 2000, the petitioner was allocated to the Patiala Range. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Punjab Police on 1st August, 1977. He was promoted as Head Constable on 7th July, 1989 and thereafter as Assistant Sub Inspector on 1st September, 1988. In the year 2000, the petitioner was allocated to the Patiala Range. On 12th October, 2001, the petitioner was promoted as Sub Inspector and on 25th February, 2002 he was appointed as Inspector (Own Rank and Pay). Thereafter, on 22nd April, 2003, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Inspector. On 15th October, 2004, however, the impugned order (Annexure P-5) was issued whereby the petitioner was directed to be reverted to his parent department i.e. Wireless Wing and to be placed in the substantive rank of AS!. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, 3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was enlisted in the Telecommunication Wing of Punjab Police as constable on 1st August, 1977. He was thereafter promoted as Head Constable on 10th June, 1985 and as an ASI on 1st September, 1988. On 20th December, 1999 he was sent on deputation in Intelligence Wing. On 23rd May, 2000 he was posted as Inspector in his own Rank and Pay (ORP). After that, his name was brought on promotion list E-ll on 30th November, 2000 and he was transferred to Patiala Range. He was promoted to the rank of officiating Sub Inspector w.e.f. 28th September, 2001 by the DIG Patiala Range vide order dated 20th November, 2001. His name was further brought on promotion list F (Executive) out of turn on 22nd April, 2003 under Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rules by the then DGP, Punjab. However, Rule 1.1 of the Punjab Police Rules as amended vide Notification No. GSR-33 dated 15th June, 1990 provides that officials of Telecommunication Wing form uniform and separate cadre. Establishment of Computer and Wireless Wing is distinct and separate from the General Police. The respondents have further averred that the petitioner was recruited in the strength of Telecommunication Wing of the Punjab Police and he got a promotion as Head Constable and ASI in the said Wing. Establishment of Computer and Wireless Wing is distinct and separate from the General Police. The respondents have further averred that the petitioner was recruited in the strength of Telecommunication Wing of the Punjab Police and he got a promotion as Head Constable and ASI in the said Wing. While on deputation with the CID, he was ordered to be admitted in the promotion list E-ll (Executive) under the provisions of Rule 13.21 and 13.10 of the Punjab Police Rules; whereafter he was further transferred to Patiala Range on 30th November, 2000 by the then DGP, Punjab. The respondents have, however, clarified that the petitioner got promotions as Sub Inspector and Inspector outside his parent cadre. These promotions being unsustainable in the eyes of law, were reviewed by the respondent department and the petitioner was repatriated to his parent cadre i.e. Telecommunication Wing in the substantive rank of ASI. The respondents have further averred that order dated 30th November, 2000 regarding transfer of the petitioner from CID to Patiala Range was also not in accordance with the rules. The same was thus reviewed by the DGP, Punjab and vide order dated 15th October, 2004. The petitioner was repatriated to his parent cadre in the substantive rank of ASI. It has also been clarified in the reply that under Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, names of outstanding ASIs who have not qualified the promotion course for ASI from Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur but otherwise are of exceptional merit, may be entered in list E-ll with the approval of IGP (Now DGP) if they are not below the age of 45 years. However, in the case of the petitioner there was no recommendation made by the Telecommunication Wing for inclusion in the promotion list E-ll. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once he had been promoted to the post of Inspector in Patiala Range, there was no reason to revert him all of a sudden to the post of ASI in his parent cadre. In fact, he had been duly promoted by an order passed by the DGP in terms of Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. According to the learned counsel, there is no justification, whatsoever, in repatriating him to his parent cadre and reverting him to the post of ASI. In fact, he had been duly promoted by an order passed by the DGP in terms of Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. According to the learned counsel, there is no justification, whatsoever, in repatriating him to his parent cadre and reverting him to the post of ASI. The counsel has also placed reliance upon a similarly placed lady Inspector namely, Raka Ghirra who had been absorbed as Inspector of Police in the General (Executive) line w.e.f. 6th July, 2001 whereafter she joined the District Police. She had even been promoted as DSP by now. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioner as his name has been ignored while that of Raka Ghirra has been accepted. 6. Learned counsel for the State has, however, vehemently contended that when, it was found by the department that orders in respect of the petitioner had been wrongly passed, the same were reviewed and it was decided to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department i.e. Telecommunication Wing in the substantive rank of ASI. The counsel has also contended that the petitioner was basically trained for Telecommunication and, therefore, he could lay no claim to be absorbed in Patiala Range as a regular Inspector. 7. We now proceed to deal with the rival contentions of the counsel. A perusal of Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rules shows that the power of relaxation contained in the said Rule can be exercised "with respect to any class or category of persons". This apart, while exercising this power, cartel reasons have to be recorded in writing. However, the order passed by the DGP in the present case shows that the power has been exercised not in respect of any class or category but in respect of an individual. Besides, the order passed by the DGP does not specify the reasons for granting the relaxation except that it was in recognition of his outstanding performance. On the other hand, respondents have averred in the reply that relaxation had been granted to the petitioner as he had been posted as Reader to the then DGP. Illegal benefit had been conferred upon him de h6rs the mandate of statutory rules. 8. From a perusal of the record it is clear that the petitioner was granted out of turn promotion while on deputation. Illegal benefit had been conferred upon him de h6rs the mandate of statutory rules. 8. From a perusal of the record it is clear that the petitioner was granted out of turn promotion while on deputation. Rule 13.21 was invoked to grant promotion to the petitioner. However, the order whereby the said rule was invoked, does not give any reasons for exercise of power under the said rule. Needless to say that the DGP could not have invoked Rule 13.21 to grant relaxation to the petitioner, at his whim. The order must show valid reasons for prompting a police official to a higher rank while exercising power under Rule 13.21. In the present case, however, no such reason is decernible from a perusal of the impugned order. 9. As regards the case of lady Inspector Raka Ghirra, it appears from a perusal of the record that she was inducted in the Telecommunication Wing as Probationer Inspector on compassionate ground due to sudden demise of her husband who was serving as a DSP in Punjab Police. However, later on it was found that she had been inadvertently enlisted in the Wireless Wing as Inspector on compassionate ground even when there was no sanctioned post of lady Inspector in the Wireless Wing of the Punjab Police. It was realized by the respondents that post of Women Police existed only in the District Police. This apart, it was realized that her educational qualifications were totally different than that required in the Wireless Wing. Her case was thus reviewed and she was treated to be an Inspector of Police in General (Executive) line w.e.f. 6th July, 2001 when she joined in the District Police. In due course she was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the general cadre. 10. Thus, we find that there is no similarity between the case of the petitioner and that of lady Inspector Raka Ghirra. It cannot, therefore, be said that there has been any discrimination with the petitioner on the basis of absorption of Inspector Raka Ghirra in the General (Executive) line of Punjab Police. Thus, reliance placed on the case of Raka Ghirra is misplaced. 11. We are of the considered view that an official, who has been erroneously granted a higher rank while on deputation, does not acquire a vested right to retain the same. Thus, reliance placed on the case of Raka Ghirra is misplaced. 11. We are of the considered view that an official, who has been erroneously granted a higher rank while on deputation, does not acquire a vested right to retain the same. He cannot be heard to say that withdrawal of the rank erroneously granted in the department where he was on deputation, would amount to arbitrariness on part of the Government and thus violativeof Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are further of the view that the Government can always correct a bona fide mistake at any stage, though of course in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any element of arbitrariness on part of the respondents while repatriating the petitioner to the Telecommunication Wing of the Police Department in his substantive rank of ASI. There being no infirmity in the impugned order, we do not find it a fit case to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We thus, find no merit in the writ petition. No case for quashing the impugned order is made out. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.