Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 562 (HP)

PYARE LAL v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-06-19

SURINDER SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH, J. 1. BY means of the present writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners mainly seek the following relief :- "That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents to (a) grant him proficiency increment on completion of 16 years of service and to Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? pay arrears with suitable rate of interest in a time bound manner; (b) to open the result of DPC kept in Sealed cover in 2000 for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger and to issue promotion order of the petitioner as Deputy Ranger from 15.01.2001, the date from which his juniors have been promoted, with all consequential benefits; and (c) to consider the case of the petitioner for further promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer from the date his juniors have been promoted; with all consequential benefits in a time bound manner." 2. PRECISELY, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner herein was a Forest Guard in Kharshali Beat at Khashdhar range and remained posted as such till June, 1981. It is alleged that pursuant to the conspiracy facilitated to M/s Shiv Lal and Company in illicit felling of trees in government forest, Kharshali, as a result of which 649 trees were illicitly felled in DPF 72-A, UF-48 and UF- Telga valuing at Rs.5,79,215/- and also received as bribe from Mast Ram Tanta, thus Rs.500/- committed criminal misconduct and alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120-B, 379, 420, 467, 468 Indian Penal Code, Sections 33, 41/42 of Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2)(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was one of the co-accused in case FIR No.10/82, registered in Police Station Enforcement (South Zone), Shimla on 23.7.1982. He faced trial and vide judgment Annexure P-6, he alongwith other co-accused was acquitted by the Special Judge (Forests), Shimla vide detailed judgment dated 30.7.2011. The petitioner was due for his promotion as Deputy Ranger. The DPC was convened somewhere in the year 2001. His name was also considered, but the result thereof was kept in the 'Sealed Cover' because of aforesaid Enforcement case and pendency of some departmental inquiry against him, wherein he was also exonerated on 6.9.2000. Thus, sought the above relief. 3. The petitioner was due for his promotion as Deputy Ranger. The DPC was convened somewhere in the year 2001. His name was also considered, but the result thereof was kept in the 'Sealed Cover' because of aforesaid Enforcement case and pendency of some departmental inquiry against him, wherein he was also exonerated on 6.9.2000. Thus, sought the above relief. 3. THE respondents countered the claim of the petitioner that though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and also exonerated in subsequent departmental inquiry, but in another subsequent corruption case in terms of FIR No.17/2005 the case is still pending trial against him. 4. SHRI V.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner can only be considered for the promotion if there is no pending/ contemplated enforcement, vigilance or departmental proceedings against him. Petitioner was considered by the DPC for the promotion assessment, but his result was kept under 'Sealed Cover' because of some enforcement cases pending against him. Admittedly, the DPC had considered the name of the petitioner for the promotion, but at that time the criminal trial emanating from FIR No.10/82 as well as departmental proceedings were pending against him, that was the reason, the result was kept in the 'sealed cover'. However, when he was acquitted and exonerated from the charges, the respondents were required to open the 'sealed cover' because the event which took place subsequent to the DPC cannot be made applicable retrospectively to use it as a bar. 5. IN Chet Ram v. State of H.P. and others (CWP No.6612 of 2011 decided on 25.7.2012 decided by this Court qua similarly situated person, who was a co-accused with the petitioner in the same corruption case was acquitted vide same judgment, the relief was granted to him and direction was issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger by opening the 'Sealed Cover'. Thus the petitioner cannot be treated differently. 6. THUS, the mere fact that earlier criminal case and also the departmental proceedings were concluded in favour of the petitioner, the sealed cover should have been opened to give effect to it. Please also see Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh [ 2000 (7) SCC 210 ]. Thus the petitioner cannot be treated differently. 6. THUS, the mere fact that earlier criminal case and also the departmental proceedings were concluded in favour of the petitioner, the sealed cover should have been opened to give effect to it. Please also see Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh [ 2000 (7) SCC 210 ]. The criminal case subsequent to the DPC or any other departmental inquiry, if any, started against the employee would not in my view, will not come in the way of giving benefit of the assessment by the DPC in his favour in the anterior selection. Except the aforesaid criminal/ departmental proceedings, nothing was there against the petitioner for debarring him from considering for the promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger when his case was considered by the DPC and also grant of ACPS. 7. THEREFORE, the petition is allowed and there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger by opening the Sealed Cover and the promotion, if any, shall be from the date when persons junior to him were promoted. Needful positively be done within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment/ order. The petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits in case, he stands promoted to the higher post, failing which, it shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date it fell due. Ordered accordingly. 8. WITH these directions, writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Allowed and disposed of.