Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 96 (ORI)

Shri Pradeep Mohapatra v. Union of India

2012-02-22

B.K.NAYAK, B.P.DAS

body2012
ORDER 22.2.2012 - Heard Mr. C. R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Central Government Counsel. The petitioner in this writ application challenge the order dated 25.9.2010 and 14.10.2010 passed by opposite party No.6, Commandant, 60th Bn., CRPF vide Annexures-5 and 6 and prays for a direction to the opposite parties to allow him to undergo Senior Under Officer Cadre Course for being eligible for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector in the CRPF. The brief facts leading to the writ application tend to reveal that on 19.6.1985 the petitioner was appointed as a Constable/GD in the Group Centre of the CRPF at Bhubaneswar and on being promoted to the post of L/NK was posted at 60 Bn CRPF at Nawgaon (Assam). While he was engaged as Mess Officer in CRPF, Ors mess for the period from 26.10.1995 to 25.11.1995 and on the allegation of raising two false bills, a Disciplinary Proceedings was initiated against him, which ended against him in dismissal from service vide order dated 11.7.2007. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the same was also rejected. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court being OJC No.4288 of 2000 challenging the order of his dismissal from service. The said writ application was allowed by this Court by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 11.7.2007 as well as the order of the appellate authority, but it was left open to the authorities to inflict a lesser punishment as provided in the CRPF Rules, 1955. The petitioner was reinstated in service and ultimately the order of punishment was passed in the stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. According to the petitioner, when his counter parts were promoted to the post of Head Constable/GD and the case of the petitioner was not considered, he approached this Court in W. P.(C) No.916 of 2009 which was disposed-of on 10.4.2009 with a direction to the Commandant 60 Bn CRPF to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated 23.5.2008 within 3 months. When the aforesaid order was not complied with, the petitioner filed CONTC No.2118 of 2009 and during pendency of such contempt petition, the DIG (Estt.) DTE of the Directorate General, CRPF vide order dated 20.1.2010 in Annexure-2 assigned the seniority of the petitioner as Head Constable and indicated that he would claim seniority for next rank promotion with effect from 20.7.2001. According to the petitioner, the next promotional post of the Head Constable being Sub Inspector and an incumbent to be eligible for promotion to the said post have to qualify in the W& T Course and the Senior Under Officers Cadre Course (SUOCC). But according to the petitioner though initially he was not allowed to undergo the W& T course along with his counter parts to avail the further promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector, ultimately on a representation filed, he was allowed to undergo the W&T Course along with his counter parts and he had also completed the same. Thereafter the 2nd Course was the Senior Under Officers Cadre Course, which was scheduled to be held on 18.10.2010. According to him, though he had already completed the W&T Course, he was not selected on the ground that he had not achieved the minimum requirement of 30 marks in the Annual Confidential Report (ARC) due to the deduction of 10 marks for the punishment imposed on him in the disciplinary proceeding. This fact had been communicated to the petitioner by signal messages under Annexure-5 and 6, which have been impugned in this writ application. Learned Central Government Counsel produced Standing Order No.6 of 1999 issued by the Directorate General of CRPF regarding the procedure for promotion to various ranks from constable to Inspector, which prescribes that 10 marks is to be deducted for major punishment and 4 marks is to be deducted for minor punishments. Perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-5 shows that 10 marks have been deducted from the total marks obtained by the petitioner for the punishment imposed on him by treating the same as a major punishment and after such deduction, the marks obtained by the petitioner came to 26 marks. Annexure-5 also reveals that the petitioner has not completed the mandatory 2 years field service in the rank of Head Constable/GD. Annexure-5 also reveals that the petitioner has not completed the mandatory 2 years field service in the rank of Head Constable/GD. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention the order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the DIG (Estt) DTE, in Annexure-2, wherein it is indicated that, the petitioner would claim seniority for next rank promotion with effect from 20.7.2001. Be that as it may, we do not find anything either from the Standing Order produced by learned Central Government Counsel, nor from the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties that the mandatory 2 years field service was required to undergo the Senior Under Officers Cadre Course, but on the other hand, Annexure-2 issued by the DIG (Estt) reveals that the petitioner has been allowed to claim seniority for next rank promotion with effect from 20.7.2001. So this is a clear case where the petitioner was promoted to the post of HC/GD with effect from 20.7.2001. As it is evident from Annexure-5, the minimum mark required to undergo the Senior Under Officers Cadre Course is 30 marks and after deduction of 10 marks, he has secured 26 marks, for which he was declared ineligible for the aforesaid course. From the above, it reveals that the petitioner had secured 36 marks. But the Standing Order reveals that 10 marks are to be deducted for major punishment and 4 marks for minor punishment. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the punishment imposed on the petitioner being a minor punishment, instead of 10 marks if 4 marks would have been deducted from his total marks, his mark would have come to 32, which is more than the qualifying mark to undergo the course. Now the question arises, whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner, i.e., stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, is a major punishment or minor punishment. In this regard, the rules governing the field was produced before us wherefrom we find that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a minor punishment. In view of such, the deduction of 10 marks from the marks awarded to the petitioner, treating the punishment as a major punishment, is illegal and the authorities should have deducted 4 marks treating the same as a minor punishment. In view of such, the deduction of 10 marks from the marks awarded to the petitioner, treating the punishment as a major punishment, is illegal and the authorities should have deducted 4 marks treating the same as a minor punishment. Accordingly, we quash the orders under Annexures-5 and 6 and direct the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner to undergo the Senior Under Officers Cadre Course, As it is submitted that the petitioner has been illegally debarred from undergoing the course and, as the petitioner has already attained tile age of 48 years, he will not be eligible for the course, for which we direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post, without the qualification of the Senior Under Officers Cadre Course by the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months hence. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.