Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1395 (ALL)

Anil Kaparwan v. State of U. P.

2021-11-24

PRAKASH PADIA

body2021
JUDGMENT : [Prakash Padia, J.] 1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. Petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding respondents to open seal cover and promote him on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on ad-hoc basis in view of Clause-10 of Government Order dated 28.5.1997 and 9.1.2018. 3. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. Petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding respondents to open seal cover and promote him on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on ad-hoc basis in view of Clause-10 of Government Order dated 28.5.1997 and 9.1.2018. 3. Para-10 of Government order dated 28.5.1997 reads as under : ^^¼10½ p;u lfefr }kjk izFke ckj vkjksfir dkfeZd dh izksUufr ij fopkj djus ,oa eqgj cUn fyQkQs dh izfdz;k viuk;s tkus ds ckn ,d o”kZ dh vof/k chr tkus ij Hkh bl vof/k esa ,slh vkxf.kr ugha dh tk;sxh ftlesa vipkjh dkfeZd }kjk vo/;ku ds dkj.k tkap izfdz;k esa foyEc gqvkA ;fn vkjksfir dkfeZd ds fo”k; esa iz’kklukf/kdj.k dh tkap foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh@vfHk;kstu dk vfUre ifj.kke izkIr u gqvk gks] rks ,sls dkfeZdksa ds fo”k; esa] tks fuyfEcr ugha gS@p;u lfefr }kjk fuEufyf[kr izfrcU/kksa ds lkFk rnFkZ vk/kkj ij izksUufr ds lEcU/k esa fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA^^ d- vkjksfir dkfeZd ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi burs xEHkhj gSa fd muds vk/kkj ij mls Hkfo”; esa Hkh izksUufr ls oafpr j[kk tkuk mi;qDr@tufgr esa gksxkA [k- D;k iz’kklukf/kdj.k dh tkap@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh vfHk;kstu ds vfUre ifj.kke izkIr gksus esa dkQh le; yxsxkA x- iz’kklukf/kdj.k dh tkap@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh vfHk;kstu esa gks jgs foyEc ds fy, izR;{k ;k ijks{k :i ls vkjksfir dkfeZd rks nks”kh ugha gSaA ?k- vkjksfir dkfeZd dks rnFkZ izksUufr fn;s tkus ij og vius in dk nq:i;ksx vFkok tkap dks dqizHkkfor tks ugha djsxkA M- ;fn l{ke izkf/kdkjh mijksDr [k.M ¼d½ ¼[k½ ¼x½ ¼?k½ ds vk/kkj ij fopkjksijkUr vkjksfir dkfeZdksa dh rnFkZ vk/kkj ij izksUur djuk mi;qDr le>rs gSa rks ml n’kk esa foHkkxh; p;u lfefr ds lkeus ekeys dks j[kk tk;sxk tks vkjksfir dkfeZd ds lEiw.kZ vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij mlds dk;ksZ dk ewY;kadu djsxh rFkk rnFkZ :i ls izksUufr nsus ds vFkok u nsus ds fo”k; esa viuh laLrqfr nsxhA Pk- ;fn tkap iz’kklukf/kdj.k vkfn fdlh vU; ,tsUlh }kjk djkbZ tk jgh gks rks ml n’kk esa ml ,tsUlh dk ijke’kZ Hkh bl fcUnq rnFkZ vk/kkj ij izksUufr nsus ij izkIr fd;k tk;sxkA N- mijksDr izfdz;k ds mijkUr vjksfir dkfeZd dk rnFkZ :i ls izksUufr fd;s tkus ds vkns’kksa esa ;g Li”V fd;k tk;sxk fd izksUufr vfxze vkns’kksa rd ds fy, dh tkrh gS vkSj ‘kklu dks mDr rnFkZ izksUufr dks dHkh Hkh lekIr dj nsus dk vf/kdkj gS rFkk rnuqlkj ,sls dkfeZd dks ml ij izR;kofrZr fd;k tk ldrk gS ftl in ls mls izksUur fd;k x;k FkkA t- rnFkZ vk/kkj ij izksUufr vkjksfir dkfeZd ds fo:) py jgh iz’kklukf/kdj.k dh tkap@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh vfHk;kstu vkfn ds vfUre ifj.kke izkIr gks tkus ij mlds fo”k; esa mlh izdkj vfxze dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxh] tSlh dh tkrh gh ;fn mls rnFkZ izksUufr u nh x;h gksrhA >- ;fn U;k;ky; }kjk fdlh rnFkZ :i ls izksUur dkfeZd dks rduhdh vk/kkj ij ¼xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij ugha½ nks”keqDr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy ;k mlh vkjksi ds fy, foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk izLrko gS rks ml n’kk esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh bl fcUnq ij fopkj djsaxs fd vkjksfir dkfeZd dks rnFkZ izksUufr ij cuk;s j[kk tk, vFkok ughaA^^ “10. At the time of consideration of promotion by the Selection Committee to the employee facing charges for the first time and even after expiry of a year's period after adopting proceeding of sealed envelope; any period during which enquiry proceeding was delayed due to delinquent employee, shall not be considered in such period. If final outcome of the administrative enquiry, departmental proceedings/prosecution is still to be received, the Selection Committee shall, in respect of the employees who are not under suspension, consider promotions to such employees on ad-hoc basis subject to the following conditions: A. Whether charges levelled against the charged employee is serious to the extent that depriving him of promotion even in future shall be proper/in public interest? B. Whether considerable time will be required in receiving final outcome of the administrative enquiry/departmental proceedings/prosecution? C. Whether the employee facing charges is directly or indirectly guilty of delay in administrative enquiry/departmental proceedings/prosecution? D. Whether on the adhoc promotion being granted, the charged employee will misuse his position or adversely influence the enquiry? E. If the competent authority, on the basis of aforesaid paras (a), (b), (c), (d) and after consideration, think it proper to grant ad-hoc promotion to the employees facing charges, in such a circumstance the matter shall be placed before the Departmental Selection Committee who shall evaluate work of the employee facing charges on the basis of his entire records and shall make its recommendation for granting or non-granting adhoc promotion. F. If the enquiry is being conducted by the administrative authority or any other agency; in such a circumstance, opinion of the said agency shall also be taken into consideration for grant of ad-hoc promotion. G. After the aforementioned procedure, it shall be made clear in the orders for the promotion of the charged employee that the promotion is being made till further order and the Government has the right to cancel the aforesaid ad-hoc promotion at any time; and accordingly, such personnel as he can be reverted to the post from which he was promoted. H. On getting the final report of the administrative inquiry/departmental proceeding being carried out against the charged personnel promoted on ad-hoc basis, further proceeding in this regard will be carried out in the same manner, as would have been done had he not been promoted on ad-hoc basis. H. On getting the final report of the administrative inquiry/departmental proceeding being carried out against the charged personnel promoted on ad-hoc basis, further proceeding in this regard will be carried out in the same manner, as would have been done had he not been promoted on ad-hoc basis. I. If the employee promoted on ad-hoc basis is acquitted of charges on technical grounds (not on merits) and an appeal against the order of the Court or departmental proceeding is proposed, then in such a circumstance, the competent authority shall consider whether or not to retain the charged personnel on ad-hoc promotion.” (English Translation by Court) 4. Counsel for petitioner submitted that seal cover procedure was adopted and the matter of petitioner was kept in seal cover, when other persons junior to him were promoted as stated in para-11 read with 15 and 16 and, therefore, after one year, the matter should have been examined in the light of aforesaid Government Orders. 5. Learned Standing Counsel fairly stated that if not already considered, petitioner's claim shall be considered by competent authority and appropriate order shall be passed by competent authority in accordance with law. 6. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to competent authority to take a decision on the question of petitioner's ad-hoc promotion on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the light of Clause-10 of Government Order dated 28.5.1997 and Government Order dated 9.1.2018 and pass a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the applicability of aforesaid Government Orders in the matter of petitioner and the competent authority shall also be free to independently examine applicability of aforesaid Government Orders in the case in hand and thereafter pass reasoned order, as directed above.