Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 99 (PNJ)

Sukhbir Singh v. Director General Of Police

2010-01-07

PERMOD KOHLI

body2010
Judgment PERMOD KOHLI, J. 1. Aggrieved of his non-promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector and rejection of his representation vide Annexure P-3, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction for his promotion to the post of Inspector. 2. The petitioner was on roll with Haryana Police on 25.5.1959. He was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector w. e. f.2.3.1979 and as Sub inspector where he has been confirmed w. e. f.31.8.1984. The petitioner was transferred from Hisar Range to Gurgaon Range on 3.11.1989. The petitioners position in the seniority list of Sub Inspectors is at Sr. No.40, as is evident from the seniority list of Sub Inspectors of Hisar Range as on 1.4.1986 (Annexure P-1 ). It is stated that the petitioner has earned 50 commendation certificates, including cash awards and he was selected to man the CIA, a post requiring special calibre and performance. 3. The grievance of the petitioner relate to the promotion of his juniors by bringing them on list f and ignoring his claim. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner was served with an adverse ACR for the period 1.4.1989 to 31.10.1989, whereby he has been graded as b. It is stated that the first batch of juniors was promoted in the year 1986 vide order dated 18.7.1986. Thereafter, promotions were made in the years, 1987, 1989, 1990 as also in the year 1991. The petitioner made a representation for his promotion when his juniors were promoted in the years, 1986 and 1987 and the said representation was rejected vide order dated 13.12.1988 (Annexure P-3 ). Apparently no reasons have been recorded in the letter which is also one of the grounds for challenging his non-promotion. It is admitted by the petitioner that in the year 1986, departmental inquiry was initiated against him on 1.4.1986, which was filed later on 15.12.1987 and in the meantime, two persons junior to the petitioner were promoted. Another departmental inquiry was initiated in the year 1989 and the same also came to be filed. The respondents in their reply have justified non-promotion of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was awarded punishments of censure in the years, 1974, 1982, 1983, 1989 and 1991, besides he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of one years approved service with temporary effect in the year 1968. The respondents in their reply have justified non-promotion of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was awarded punishments of censure in the years, 1974, 1982, 1983, 1989 and 1991, besides he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of one years approved service with temporary effect in the year 1968. The respondents have also specifically averred that the petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks in his ACRs for the periods from 5.6.1975 to 30.9.1975, 2.6.1982 to 5.2.1983, 1.4.1985 to 31.3.1986. His integrity was also reported as doubtful in his ACRs for the period 1.4.1989 to 31.10.1989, which was also conveyed to him. 4. It is admitted case of the parties that for earning promotion 70% of the ACRs for the last 10 years should be good or better. According to the petitioner, he was first time superseded on 18.7.1986 and 3.8.1987. In preceding 10 years he had suffered two punishments of censure in the years, 1982 and 1983 and also had adverse ACRs in the years, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986. Thus, he was not entitled to be promoted at that time. Further promotions were made in the years, 1989, 1990 and 1991. Apart from above punishments and adverse ACRs, the petitioner further suffered adverse ACRs in the year 1989 and his integrity was also found to be doubtful. Thus, he could not have earned 70% good or better reports in the last 10 years when the promotions were made ignoring petitioners seniority. Three disciplinary inquiries were also initiated during the period under consideration though did not mature in punishment. No material has been placed on record by the petitioner to indicate that he had 70% good or better annual reports to his credit to enable him to earn promotion. In reply filed, it is specifically stated that all adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner. There is no rebuttal to this. 5. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Dismissed.