Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 769 (HP)

OM DUTT v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-09-03

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral):-The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur. The petitioner was imposed penalty of “Censure” vide order dated 20th August, 1991. He preferred an appeal against this order before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Solan. He vide order dated 27.3.1992 directed that the punishment of censure was not sufficient and departmental inquiry should be held against him de-novo. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur vide order dated 5th June, 1992 ordered departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur. The petitioner stood transferred from District Kinnaur to District Solan. The Superintendent of Police, Solan vide order dated 4th June, 1994 exonerated the petitioner of all the charges levelled against him and the departmental inquiry was ordered to be closed. 2. Mr. Bimal Gupta has strenuously argued that despite office order dated 4th June, 1994 the earlier punishment of censure has been shown in his A.C.Rs. In other words, his submission is that the persons junior to him have been promoted and his client has been ignored on the basis of penalty of censure recorded in his A.C.Rs. This position has not been seriously disputed by the State. 3. The penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner on 20th August, 1991. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range had ordered for holding the fresh departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner has been exonerated of all the charges levelled against him by the Superintendent of Police, Solan on 4th June, 1994. The effect of office order dated 4th June, 1994 is that he stood exonerated of all the charges and the earlier penalty of censure inflicted on the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police also stood revoked. The entry of censure recorded in his personal records could not be taken into consideration by the respondents after issuance of office order dated 4th June, 1994 for promotion. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date his juniors have been promoted within a period of eight weeks from today after ignoring the penalty of censure which stood revoked after the passing of order dated 4th June, 1994. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date his juniors have been promoted within a period of eight weeks from today after ignoring the penalty of censure which stood revoked after the passing of order dated 4th June, 1994. In case he is found fit for promotion, he will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.