Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 306 (MP)

Pradeep Deshmukh v. State Of M. P. And Others

2020-02-26

VISHAL MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by in action on the part of respondents whereby, promotion of the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector has been deferred even though, he was found to be fit by the Scrutiny Committee and his name was present in the fit list as well as in the order of promotion dated 30.12.2015 but despite of the aforesaid promotion, petitioner has been deferred. 2. It is argued that he was appointed as constable in the year 1981 and was promoted on the post of Head Constable in the year 1988 and looking to his outstanding performance, he was further promoted as ASI in the year 1988. Case of the petitioner was further considered for promotion for the post of Sub Inspector (MT) and promotion order dated 30.12.2015 was issued wherein, his name was figured at Sr.No. 5. It is alleged that the petitioner was given posting in District Gwalior after promotion and on the date of promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, there was no case pending against the petitioner. However, he was not permitted to join on the promoted post as well as charge of the post of Sub Inspector (MT) was not given to him. The petitioner has specifically stated that no criminal case was pending against him on the date of meeting of DPC and no charge sheet was issued to him. Subsequently, on 9.2.2016 charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and departmental inquiry was held. It is submitted that the date of notification of departmental inquiry is being considered as the date when the charge sheet was issued. The order of promotion of petitioner after due consideration by DPC was issued on 30.12.2015 and the charge sheet was issued on 9.2.2016 which is admittedly after promotion of the petitioner, Therefore, the authorities were having no right not to promote petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 , Union of India and Others Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar reported in (2013) 4 SCC 161 and Union of India and Others Vs. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 , Union of India and Others Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar reported in (2013) 4 SCC 161 and Union of India and Others Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak reported in (2007) 6 SCC 704 and has argued that no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on the date of consideration of his case by DPC and also the charge sheet was issued subsequently thereafter. Therefore, in pursuance to the promotion order of petitioner, the respondent authorities could not have restrained the petitioner from jointing promoted post. 3. Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by filing return denying averments of the petition contending therein that the complaint was made against the petitioner by certain employees and the preliminary inquiry as conducted against him, report of which is dated 27.4.2015 in pursuance to which, the petitioner was placed under suspension. On 15.5.2015. Suspension of the petitioner was revoked 12.5.2015 and thereafter, regular departmental inquiry was was initiated against the petitioner by invoking provisions of Section 64 91) of the Police Regulation. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 15.7.2015. Therefore, the charge sheet was issued much prior to the issuance of promotion order. Cousnel for the respondents has drawn attention of this court to Annexure R/4 which is a letter written by SP PTS Tighra to Additional Director General of Police (Training), Bhopal and has submitted that instructions were issued on 15.7.2015 itself for preparation of charge sheet and list of documents to conduct departmental inquiry. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter, following charge was levied against the petitioner : ^^laLFkk esa 67osa uo vkj{kd cqfu;knh izf'k{k.k l= esa izf'k{k.kjr uo vkj{kdksa ls muds yfuZx ,oa LFkk;h Mk;foax yk;lsal cuok;s tkus gsrq ifjogu foHkkx ds fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd ls vf/kd voS/k jkf'k olwy dj Hkz"Vkpj.k djrs gq;s laLFkk dh Nfo /kwfey dj iqfyl jsX;wys'ku ds iSjk 6410 esa mfYyf[kr lkekU; lsok 'krksZ dk mYya?ku djukA^^ 4. It is submitted that as the charge sheet has already been issued to the petitioner, therefore, case laws relied upon by the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is submitted that as the charge sheet has already been issued to the petitioner, therefore, case laws relied upon by the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From perusal of record, it is seen that the case of petitioner was considered by DPC and the petitioner was found fit for promotion. It is not disputed that the promotion order was issued on 30.12.2015 wherein, name of petitioner finds place at Sr.no.5. Copy of the charge sheet has been filed along with rejoinder which is dated 9.2.2016. Admittedly, promotion order of petitioner was much prior to the issuance of charge sheet. Though preliminary inquiry is said to have been conducted against the petitioner wherein, he was found guilty as per preliminary inquiry report dated 27.4.2015. Immediately, he was placed under suspension on 15.4.2015 and his suspension was revoked on 12.5.2015. Letter dated 15.7.2015 was issued for preparation of the charge sheet which was subsequently directed to be issued to the petitioner as is reflected from annexure P/4 filed along with the rejoinder. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Coal India Ltd. And Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra reported in (2007) Volume 9 SCC 625 has held as under : 'A departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued'. 7. Similar view was taken by Hon. Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar reported in (2013) Volume 4 SCC 161 as under : '19. In Coal India Limited & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra, AIR 2007 SC 1706 , this Court, in para 22, has held : that a departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued. 20. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others vs. Ananta Saha and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 142 , this Court held as under: '27. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge-sheet is issued to the delinquent employee. (Vide Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 and UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694 ). We also reiterate that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge sheet is issued. (Vide Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 and UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694 ). We also reiterate that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge sheet is issued. Departmental proceeding is normally said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued'. 8. From perusal of aforesaid law, it is clear that date of issuance of charge sheet is to be considered as the date of institution of departmental inquiry. Admittedly, case of the petitioner was considered by DPC for promotion on the post of Sub Inspector (MT) on 16.12.2015 which is much prior to the issuance of charge sheet against the petitioner. 9. I.A.No.2431 of 2017 has been preferred on behalf of petitioner for disposing of the case in the light of judgment rendered by Hon. Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V.Jankiraman reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 . It is submitted that the case of petitioner is covered by this judgment, therefore, the petition be disposed of in the aforesaid term. 10. Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case an also the law laid down by the Apex Court, this court is of the considered view that the case of petitioner was considered by DPC on 16.12.2015 and the charge sheet was issued on 9.2.2016 much after the date of consideration of the petitioner for grant of promotion. Therefore, the authorities were having no right to defer promotion of the petitioner and thus, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should be allowed to join promoted posted i.e. Sub Inspector (MT). 11. Therefore, the respondent/authorities are directed to permit petitioner to join on the promoted post in pursuance to the order dated 30.12.2015 with respect to the petitioner only. With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of with no order as to the cost. CC as per rules.