Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1101 (JHR)

Sarju Lal Thakur v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-20

ANANDA SEN

body2016
ORDER : The petitioner is claiming promotion from the post of Sergeant Major to Dy. S.P. The petitioner submits that his case was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee, but no final decision on his promotion was taken on the ground of pendency of a departmental proceeding No. 94 of 2011. He submits that in the meantime several juniors have been promoted. 2. Counsel for the State refused to accept this statement and submits that none of the juniors have been promoted. 3. This submission made on behalf of the State has been controverted by the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the seniority list. 4. The admitted fact is that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for considering his case for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P., which was not considered on the ground that a departmental proceeding is still pending against him. 5. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the departmental proceeding is pending, his case should have been considered and decision should have been kept in sealed cover awaiting the final result of the departmental proceeding. He further submits that as per Rule 726(ii)(a) of the Police Manual one post of the appropriate seniority should have been kept pending till the conclusion of the departmental enquiry. Since sealed cover procedure was not adopted and one post has not been kept pending as per Rule 726(ii)(a) of the Police Manual, the concerned respondent has committed illegality. He further submits that departmental proceeding is pending since 2011 and the petitioner is about to retire soon. 6. It is now settled that the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can be placed in the “sealed cover” only if on the date of consideration of the name for promotion, the departmental proceeding has been initiated or is pending or on its conclusion, final order had not been passed by the authority. It is obvious that if the officer against whom the departmental proceedings were initiated, is ultimately exonerated, the sealed cover containing the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee would be opened, and the recommendation would be given effect to. 7. It is obvious that if the officer against whom the departmental proceedings were initiated, is ultimately exonerated, the sealed cover containing the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee would be opened, and the recommendation would be given effect to. 7. In view of this admitted fact and the proposition of law, I direct the State that the departmental proceeding, which is pending in respect of the petitioner since 2011, shall be concluded within a period of three months from today. Further, if any, meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee is held, the case of the petitioner should be considered and the recommendation should be kept in a sealed cover to be opened after conclusion of the departmental proceeding. Further one post of appropriate seniority as per Rule 726 (ii)(a) of the Police Manual should be kept vacant. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding and opening of the sealed cover if the petitioner is found entitled to be promoted, all the consequential orders should be passed. 8. This writ application is, thus, disposed of.