Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 911 (HP)

Narayan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-07-16

V.K.SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner who retired as Sub Inspector (SI) of Police from the respondent Department on 30.4.2014, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued by quashing impugned order dated 06.05.2010, Annexure P-8 regarding adverse entry in the ACR of the petitioner, Annexure P-10, copy of order passed by the Commandant, the then Superintendent of Police, Kullu on 22.03.2010, order dated 16.04.2010, Annexure P-11 order dated 30.07.2011, Annexure P-13, issued by respondent No. 3 and order dated 31.10.2011, Annexure P-14, order dated 16.06.2012, Annexure P-17, being illegal and arbitrary. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to confirm the petitioner as Sub-Inspector from the date when junior persons have been confirmed vide Annexure P-13 from Sr. No. 4 to 26 and to promote as Sub-Inspector, with all consequential benefits as well as seniority. (iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector from the date when his juniors were given promotion as well as confirmed as Inspector.” 2. The factual matrix giving rise to filing of the present petition is that while posted as Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in CIA staff, Kullu, on 13.11.2006 he was heading a police party, which conducted a raid at a place known as Brow where certain persons were gambling. The allegation against the petitioner is that a sum of Rs. 59,702/- (rupees fifty nine thousand, seven hundred two only) was recovered during the raid, but he dishonestly showed the recovery of Rs. 24,500/- (rupees twenty thousand, five hundred only) and misappropriated the remaining sum of Rs. 35,202/- (rupees thirty five thousand, two hundred two only) only. It was further alleged that out of thirteen persons found gambling only five were arrayed as accused and the remaining were let off apparently for extraneous considerations. On these allegations an inquiry was held against the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), Anni, District Kullu, who exonerated him. 3. 35,202/- (rupees thirty five thousand, two hundred two only) only. It was further alleged that out of thirteen persons found gambling only five were arrayed as accused and the remaining were let off apparently for extraneous considerations. On these allegations an inquiry was held against the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), Anni, District Kullu, who exonerated him. 3. Permission to initiate departmental proceedings under Rule 16.38(1) of the Police Rules against the petitioner sought by the Superintendent of Police, Kullu from the District Magistrate, Kullu was declined vide letter dated 21.4.2007, Annexure P-4. The matter ended there and then. Consequently, adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the petitioner for the period 1.4.2006 to 3.1.2007 were expunged and his ACR was classified as ‘B’. However, even despite that in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 30.5.2008 to 28.2.2009 to 31.3.2009 obtained by him under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), vide letter dated 6.5.2010, Annexure P-8, remarks against column No. (1) Honesty, to the effect doubtful as per S.P. Kullu letter No. 23094 dated 5.12.06 were recorded. Thus when the aforesaid adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 1.4.2006 to 3.1.2007 had already been expunged and his ACR upgraded from ‘C’ to ‘B’ vide order Annexure P-7, dated 13.9.2007, those very remarks could not have been repeated in his later ACR for the period 30.5.2008 to 28.2.209 to 31.3.2009. 4. In para 9 of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, the only ground for denying confirmation of the petitioner as Inspector, who by then had already been promoted as Sub Inspector (SI) on officiating basis on 19.1.2007, has been stated that the adverse remarks in his ACR for the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 had not been expunged and due to adverse ACR for this period he was not found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for confirmation. As a result he recently retired as Sub Inspector on 30.4.2014. 5. As a result he recently retired as Sub Inspector on 30.4.2014. 5. Thus it is manifest that the benefit of confirmation has been denied to the petitioner only on the basis of the aforesaid non-existent entry against column No. (1), Honesty as doubtful as per S.P. Kullu letter No. 23094 dated 5.12.06 in his ACR for the period 30.5.2008 to 28.2.2009/31.3.2009, obtained by him under the RTI Act vide letter dated 6.5.2010, Annexure P-8, which action of the DPC on the face of it is unsustainable. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and Annexure P-10 quashed with a direction to respondent No. 2 to take immediate steps for convening Review DPC for consideration of the case of the petitioner for confirmation initially as Sub Inspector (SI) and further consequential promotion/confirmation as Inspector, if otherwise found entitled in accordance with law and the observations contained hereinabove in this judgment, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before respondent No. 2. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.