Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 407 (DEL)

HARISH CHANDRA YATI v. UNION OF INDIA

2016-01-25

NAJMI WAZIRI, SANJIV KHANNA

body2016
JUDGMENT : SANJIV KHANNA, J. We have heard Mr. Harish Chandra Yati, who appears in person, but regret our inability to agree with his submissions. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police on 7th July, 1980. The petitioner was awarded punishment of censure on 9th August, 1991. In view of the said order of punishment, the petitioner’s name was not included in promotion list ‘F’ (Exe.) prepared on the basis of the recommendation of the regular Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 12th August, 1994. The petitioner subsequently filed OA No. 41/1995 as certain adverse remarks in ACR for the period 1st April, 1990 to 31st March, 1991 had been toned down. Pursuant to the directions issued in the said OA, the petitioner’s case was reconsidered by the review DPC in their meeting held on 22nd September, 1995. The review DPC, however, rejected the petitioner’s claim. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the tribunal by way of OA No. 1912/1995. The said OA was also dismissed. 3. The petitioner was found fit and his name was included in list ‘F’ [Inspector (Exe.)] with effect from 9th November, 2001 and was granted promotion as an Inspector with effect from 13th November, 2001. 4. After working in the said post of Inspector for more than ten years, the petitioner made a representation dated 14th November, 2011 seeking ante-dated promotion to the post of Inspector with effect from 2nd July, 1997. The case of the petitioner was that his juniors, 38 in number, were promoted with effect from 2nd July, 1997, but his case for promotion was not considered. The contention is that by that time, the embargo and adverse consequences of punishment of censure would not be applicable. 5. To explain and meet the delay and bar of limitation, the petitioner professes ignorance and infamilarity that his juniors were promoted in the year 1997. Their promotions, it is stated, were unknown and unheard till the petitioner had moved an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and details were furnished. 6. The tribunal, in our opinion, was right not to believe and accept the petitioner’s claim to enlightenment in 2011. The assertion per se is unbelievable and shallow. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police, we perceive and accept was aware of the promotions, which had been granted to his juniors with effect from 2nd July, 1997. 6. The tribunal, in our opinion, was right not to believe and accept the petitioner’s claim to enlightenment in 2011. The assertion per se is unbelievable and shallow. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police, we perceive and accept was aware of the promotions, which had been granted to his juniors with effect from 2nd July, 1997. The petitioner, it is noticed, has been litigating and had twice in 1994 and then in 1995 filed petitions before the tribunal. He was conscious that the punishment had effected his promotion. 7. The said 38 Sub-Inspectors were given promotion with effect from 12th August, 1994 on ad hoc basis, which were regularised with effect from 2nd July, 1997 vide order dated 28th February, 1998. In fact, the petitioner’s case was also considered by the DPC held on 12th August, 1994, but the petitioner was declared unfit due to adverse remarks in his ACRs for the period 1st April, 1990 to 31st March, 1991. It is difficult to imagine and believe that the petitioner in these circumstances was not aware that 38 Sub-Inspectors, who were junior to him, were promoted, as his case was rejected by the DPC held on the said date. Review DPC, as noticed above, was held on 22nd September, 1995 pursuant to directions issued by the tribunal in OA No. 41/1995 in which again the petitioner’s case was assessed as unfit. 8. There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.