Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 556 (HP)

Ramesh Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-09-02

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied on account of non consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Block Officer/Deputy Ranger, petitioner approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application bearing No. 3059 of 2015, praying therein for following substantive relief:- "(i) That this application be allowed and the respondents be directed to promote the applicant from the year 2001 as Block Officer/Deputy Ranger when similarly situated persons were promoted and grant all consequential benefits. 2. After abolishment of erstwhile Tribunal, OA came to be transferred to this Court and the same has been re-registered as CWPOA No. 5546 of 2019. 3. Briefly the facts, as emerge from the record are that petitioner was appointed as Timber Watcher in the year 1983 and thereafter he came to be promoted as Forest Guard in the year 1987. Petitioner remained posted as Forest Guard with effect from 1987 till 2001. During this period, petitioner was charge-sheeted with following charges i.e. (i) committing gross irregularity (ii) he was careless in discharging of his official duty. Inquiry was initiated by respondent No.2, wherein petitioner was found guilty by the disciplinary authority. On the basis of inquiry report, major penalty of reduction in rank was imposed and he was demoted to the post of Timber Watcher from the post of Forest Guard. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the imposition of aforesaid penalty, petitioner preferred appeal before Managing Director, who vide order dated 28.5.1999 rejected the same. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the aforesaid order passed by appellate authority, he preferred CWP(T) No. 6183 of 2008, which came to be decided by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2009, whereby order dated 28.5.1999 passed by appellate authority came to be quashed and set aside being a non-speaking order. While quashing the aforesaid order, Division Bench of this Court directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal afresh and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of eight weeks. Pursuant to aforesaid order passed by Division Bench of this Court, Managing Director decided the appeal afresh vide order dated 11.12.2009, Annexure R-1, annexed with the reply filed by the respondent and reduced the major penalty of reduction in rank to the stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Pursuant to aforesaid order passed by Division Bench of this Court, Managing Director decided the appeal afresh vide order dated 11.12.2009, Annexure R-1, annexed with the reply filed by the respondent and reduced the major penalty of reduction in rank to the stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Besides above, petitioner in the meanwhile also stands acquitted of the case registered against him under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act qua allegations and charges, which were the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. Since, despite there being modification of penalty imposed by disciplinary authority and acquittal of petitioner in criminal case, case of the petitioner never came to be considered by respondents for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger, he was compelled to approach erstwhile Tribunal by way of original application, praying therein for relief as has been reproduced hereinabove. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though initially the disciplinary authority imposed major penalty i.e. reduction in rank but subsequently such penalty was modified by appellate authority i.e. stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. 6. Similarly Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 does not dispute that the petitioner stands acquitted in the criminal case registered against him and as such there appears to be merit in the case of petitioner that after passing of aforesaid orders by appellate authority and Court of law, respectively, respondent-Corporation ought to have considered the petitioner for promotion. Interestingly, respondent-Corporation in its reply has taken a very strange stand that though petitioner's designation was restored to the rank of Forest Guard after three years but he was bound to lose his seniority. It is not understood that once pursuant to order passed by appellate authority, petitioner's designation was restored to that of Forest Guard, how he would lose his seniority in the rank of Forest Guard. Penalty as awarded by appellate authority i.e. stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect cannot be said to have any bearing or effect, if any, on the seniority of the petitioner, who admittedly prior to imposition of penalty by disciplinary authority was holding rank of Forest Guard. Penalty as awarded by appellate authority i.e. stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect cannot be said to have any bearing or effect, if any, on the seniority of the petitioner, who admittedly prior to imposition of penalty by disciplinary authority was holding rank of Forest Guard. Otherwise also, perusal of order dated 11.12.2009 passed by appellate authority, whereby penalty imposed by disciplinary authority came to be modified, nowhere suggests that the appellate authority while reducing/modyfing the penalty imposed by disciplinary authority ordered that the peittioner would not regain the seniority in the cadre of Forest Guard. Since, penalty of reduction in rank imposed by disciplinary authority came to be modified to stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, stand taken by respondent-Corporation in its reply that since petitioner was restored to the rank of Forest Guard after three years time, he was bound to lose his seniority, cannot be allowed to sustain being totally absurd and contrary to the provisions of law. Once petitioner was restored back to the cadre of Forest Guard pursuant to order passed by appellate authority, he was deemed to have been restored to the rank of Forest Guard from the date he was demoted to the post of Timber Watcher pursuant to order passed by disciplinary authority, which admittedly came to be modified in the appeal having been filed by the petitioner. Reply filed by respondent, if read in entirety clearly reveals that case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger was not considered on the ground that he lost his seniority for three years on account of reduction in rank but, as has been discussed hereinabove in detail, that once petitioner was ordered to be restored back to the rank of Forest Guard pursuant to order by appellate authority, he would be deemed to have continuously worked against the post of Forest Guard from the date he was demoted to the post of Timber Watcher pursuant to penalty imposed by disciplinary authority. 7. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post from the date similarly situate persons were promoted and grant all benefits consequential thereto. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.