Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1761 (PNJ)

Dalsher Singh v. State Of Haryana

2008-10-20

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2008
Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. The petitioner vide this writ petition prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure P7) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana, vide which the Review appeal/representation for promotion to the rank of Head Constable and fixation of seniority in the rank of Head Constable and Claim for deemed date of enlistment in List C-l has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to bring the petitioner on List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994 instead of 03.05.1994 and for grant of all consequential benefits as have been granted to his juniors. 2. The petitioner was Constable and was deputed to undergo the Lower School Course, which commenced on 01.08.1993 and completed on 31.01.1994, For an act of taking Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification from Sh. Kuldip Kumar Jain while the petitioner was posted as Constable at Saha Chowk Barrier on 17.12.1992, the petitioner was awarded a penalty of Censure on 03.11.1993. On completion of the course on 31.01.1994, the other batch mates of the petitioner were brought on List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994. The name of the petitioner was not included on the ground that a penalty of Censure was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 03.11.1993. However, the name uf the petitioner was brought on List C-l w.e.f. 03.05.1994 by the Superintendent of Police, Ambala on completion of six months from the date of penalty of Censure awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that his name should have been brought on List C-l w.e.f. the date the names of his juniors and batch mates were broughton List C-l i.e. 15.03.1994. It is further the contention of the petitioner that Constable Ramesh Kumar No. 144/SPT and Constable Sumer Chand No. 867/RTK and Constable Randhir Singh No. 684/SPT (New No. 992/KNL). were also awarded punishment of Censure during the said period but their names were brought on List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994 and thus the petitioner has been discriminated against. Besides these, some other Con-stables i.e. Ram Phal No. 582, Constable Brahm - Parkash No. 288, Constable Karnail Singh No. 464 and Constable Dhanpat No. 508. District Yamunagar were also awarded the punishment of Censure during the said period and their names were also brought on List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994. Besides these, some other Con-stables i.e. Ram Phal No. 582, Constable Brahm - Parkash No. 288, Constable Karnail Singh No. 464 and Constable Dhanpat No. 508. District Yamunagar were also awarded the punishment of Censure during the said period and their names were also brought on List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994. It is the contention of the petitioner that his batch mates in the tower School Course i.e. Batch No. 34, which com-menced w.e.f. 01.08.1993 to 31.01.1994, have been broughton List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994 and, accordingly, have been promoted as Head Constables in year 1999 whereas the petitioner was broughton C-1 w.e.f. 03.05.1994 and has been promoted as Constable on 29.11,2000. The juniors to him, as per the result of the C-l Course, have been promoted in the year 1999 whereas the petitioner has been promoted in the year 2000 thus leading to discrimination and violation of his right of seniority and promotion. 3. Upon notice having been issued, State of Haryana has filed a detailed reply wherein reliance has been placed on Rule 13.8-A of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to State of Haryana to contend that the name of the petitioner could only be brought on List C-l after six months continuous good conduct as a punishment of Censure was awarded to the petitioner for accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- from Sh. Kuldip Kumar Jain while he was posted as Constable at Saha Chowk Barrier on 17.12.1992. It has been further submitted that after the expiry of six months from the date of punishment, the name of the petitioner was brought on List C-l on 03.05.1994. The fact regarding the other officials, who were batch mates of the petitioner having been brought on List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994. is admitted. Further the fact regarding the Constables mentioned by the petitioner in this petition, who had been also granted punishment of Censure and having been brought on List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994, also Stands admitted. However, it is the contention of the respondents that the name of the petitioner could not be brought on List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994 in view of Rule 13.8-A of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to the State of Haryana, wherein it has been specifically provided that name of the Constable, who has been inflicted punishment of Censure, may be readmitted at the discretion of the Superintendent after six months continuous good conduct. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 5. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that similarly placed Constables, who were also awarded punishment of Censure by the department, have been brought on List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994 and therefore, the petitioner was also entitled to the same benefit and all consequential benefits as persons junior to him and were similariy placed have been granted. It is thus the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that if his name is brought on List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994 as in the case of his juniors, the petitioner would be entitled to promotion as Head Constable in the year 1999 when his Juniors were promoted as Head Constables instead of his present date of promotion as Head Constable i.e. 29.11.2000. He further contends that Rule 13.8-A of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner as the same comes into play only in case a major punishment is inflicted on the empioyee covered under the said Rules. 6. These contentions of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. Rule 13.8-A of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to the State of Haryana reads as under: "13.8-A. Disqualification for admission to or retention in Lists A, Bor C- (1) The infliction of any major punishment shall be a bar to admission to or retention in lists. A, B or C, provided that (a) for special reasons to be recorded by the Superintendent, in each case, and subject to confirmation by the Deputy Inspector-General, this disqualification may be waived, and (b) after six months continuous good conduct in the case of censure or confinement to quarters or on expiry of the period of reduction in the case of reduction for a specified period, or constable may be readmitted at the discretion of the Superintendent. (2) Gazetted Officers shall look out for, and encourage their Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors to bring to notice, Constables who, by reason of their general character and ability of of special acts, are suited for inclusion in lists A, B or C, and shall, after satisfying themselves by necessary enquiries, make suitable recommendations to the Superintendent" A perusal of the above Rule shows that the Rule applies to disqualification for admission to or retention in Lists A, B or C Sub-Clause (b) of Clause I clearly specifies that after six months continuous good conduct in the case of Censure, a Constable may be readmitted at the discretion of the Superintendent. In the present case, the petitioner was inflicted the punishment of Censure on 03.11.1993 and as per Rule 13.8-A of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , the petitioner became eligible for Superintendent only after six months continuous good conduct i.e. on 03.05.1994. The case of the petitioner was, accordingly, considered by the Superintendent of Police, Ambala and the name of the petitioner was brought on List C-l w.e.f, 03.05.1994, on the date when six months, as prescribed under Rule 13.8-A, expired. Further the petitioner was not illegible for consideration for bringing his name on List C-l on 31.01.2004, the date he passed the Lower School Course nor on the date when his batch mates were brought on List C-t i.e. on 15.03.1994 in view of the order of punishment of Censure dated 03.11.1993. The claim of the petitioner for bringing his name on List C-! w.e.f. 15.03.1994 thus cannot be sustained and is rejected in view of specific stipulation of six months provided in the above mentioned Rule. 7. The second contention of the counsel for the petitioner that similariy placed Constables i.e. Constable Ramesh Kumar No. 144/SPT, Constable Sumer Chand No. 867/RTK, Constable Randhir Singh No. 684/SPT(New No. 992/KNL), Constable Ram Phal No. 582, Constable Brahm Parkash No. 288, Constable Karnail Singh No. 464 and Constable Dhanpat No. 508 District Yamunanagar, who were awarded the punishment of Censure but their names were brought on List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994 and, therefore, the petitioner has been discriminated against, cannot be accepted as there can be no estoppel against the Statute. Any benefit, which has been wrongly granted to some other employes and which is in clear violation of the stipulations of the Rules applicable to the Service, cannot be claimed as a matter of right nor can Articies 14 and 16 be invoked to claim discrimination on such score. Any benefit granted to any employee against the Statutory Rules cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, same benefit cannot be granted to other employee, who makes the Claim on that basis, for such benefit(s). In the present case, although the respondents have admitted that the abovementioned Constables, who are stated to be similariy situated as the petitioners, have been granted the benefit of enlistment in List C-l w.e.f. 15.03.1994 but the same being in violation of Rule 13.8-A of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, cannot be sustained. The respondents when became aware of the wrongful benefit granted to the abovementioned Constables in total violation of the statutory rules, should have on their own taken remedial steps, in accordance with law, so that the wrongful gain attained by the said Constables could be set right. The same having not been done and having been admitted by the respondents in their reply to para-8 of the Petition, the same does not reflect a healthy trend in the department. Appropriate remedial steps in accordance with law is required to be taken by the respondents and necessary steps be taken by the respondents to set right the wrong, which has been committed and has encouraged the petitioner to make this a basis for claiming an illegal benefit. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same. Petition dismissed