JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has preferred present petition, under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned action on the part of the respondents for not considering the case of the petitioner for the promotion of the Assistant Sub Inspector, with below mentioned prayer:- "15. (A) Admit this petition. (B) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to have his seniority in Jamnagar District being the parent district and the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner as ASI along with the persons who are promoted by order dated 20.9.2012 is unjust, improper, bad in law in as much as the persons namely Shailesh Ramniklal Babaria, Bhupendrasinh Babubha Jadeda, Aniruddhsinh Ranjitsinh Jhala and Kishorchandra Narandas Gohil and Bipinkumar Jethalal Vala, Nalinbharthi Bhimbharthi Bharthi are the persons junior to petitioner and yet they are promoted under the said order dated 20.9.2012 and be further pleased to direct the respondents to maintain seniority of the petitioner in Jamnagar District before Shailesh Ramniklal Babaria and further direct the respondents to grant promotion as ASI to the petitioner with effect from 20.9.2012 with all consequential benefits including arrears of promotional post. (BB) Quash and set aside order dated 19.04.2013 annexure AA to this petition and direct the respondents to post the petitioner in Jamnagar District in light of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in LPA no. 2277 of 2010 in SCA 3739 of 2010 dated 17.02.2011 and decision no.1030 of 2011 in SCA 12765 of 2010 dated 14.07.2011 and LPA no. 1126 of 2012 dated 10.09.2012 and also in light rule 152 and 153 of Gujarat Police Manual and Sec.28(1) of Bombay Police Act and be further pleased to direct the respondents to retransfer petitioner to his parents District Jamanagar as Unarmed Head Constable in interest of justice. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately consider case of petitioner for promotion to the post of ASI on the basis of his seniority before Shailesh Ramniklal Babaria in Jamnagar District and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (D) Grant such other and further reliefs deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case." 2. (D) Grant such other and further reliefs deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case." 2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was performing duties as Unarmed Head Police Constable at Jamnagar and by order dated 17.3.2012 passed by respondent No.3, on the basis of the letter dated 9.3.2012 of the Superintendent of Police Jamnagar, he was transferred to Surendranagar District. After joining his duty at Surendranagar District, petitioner had made detailed representation to Respondent No.3 on 27.4.2012 for replacing him at Jamnagar. Thereafter, as no response was given to his representation by respondent No.3, he made representation to respondent No.2 on 20.8.2012. However, the said representations have not been answered by respondent authorities. 2.1 It appears that the petitioner had joined service on 14.2.1981 as Unarmed Constable and was promoted as Unarmed Head constable on 16.6.2006 and because of his transfer from Jamnagar District, he was deprived of his right of promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector and juniors to him were promoted ignoring the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector and, therefore, he has suffered without any order of punishment and also without any departmental inquiry, though he has rendered 31 years dotless service and there is no any departmental inquiry against him. In view of his transfer from his parent district i.e. Jamnagar to Surendranagar, his right to promotion in the Jamnagar district has been adversely affected and his family and social life has been disturbed. 2.2 In view of aforesaid facts, the petitioner has filed present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Hasit Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Megha Chitlia, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Unarmed Police Constable in Jamnagar and in 2006 the petitioner was promoted for the post of Unarmed Police Head Constable and thereafter, he was serving as Unarmed Police Head constable at Jamnagar. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 17.03.2012, the petitioner was transfer from Jamnargar to Surendranagar on the ground of administrative exigency and in the public interest. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thereafter, his case was not considered by the authority for promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 17.03.2012, the petitioner was transfer from Jamnargar to Surendranagar on the ground of administrative exigency and in the public interest. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thereafter, his case was not considered by the authority for promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the seniority of the petitioner is required to be maintained at Jamnagar district, since he was appointed by the order of the District Superintendent of Police Jamnagar and not by the District Superintendent of Police Surendranagar and therefore, only the District Superintendent of Police Jamnagar is required to maintain his service condition. He has further submitted that the impugned action on the part of the District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar by not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion of Assistant Sub Inspector is absolutely unjust, illegal and arbitrary. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on the date of transfer from Jamnagar to Surendranagar, the authority imposed minor punishment against the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment which was imposed by the authority is absolutely erroneous and illegal and therefore, the impugned action of the respondent is illegal, unjust and the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of promotion from 2012 instead of 2017. 4.1 In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the provision of the Gujarat Police Manual and the General Circular issued by the General Administrator, Administrative Department dated 1.9.2006 and submitted that though the delinquent was punished for minor penalty, his name can be considered for the promotion on the higher post by following certain procedure, which is laid down in the circular issued by the General Administrative Department. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court dated 20.01.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 252 of 2009 and submitted that the Annual Confidential Report was never communicated to the petitioner before forwarding the case of the petitioner to DPC. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner, more particularly, relied upon paragraph Nos. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court dated 20.01.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 252 of 2009 and submitted that the Annual Confidential Report was never communicated to the petitioner before forwarding the case of the petitioner to DPC. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner, more particularly, relied upon paragraph Nos. 4.1 and 7 of Special Civil Application No. 252 of 2009, which read as under:- "4.1 Regarding the delay in the communication of the adverse remarks, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was serving in Vadodara City, which is a highly sensitive and disturbed area. The Superior Officers of the petitioner were occupied in the activity of restoring law and order connected to other departments. As the Officers of the Police Department are looking after law and order problems, V.V.I.P. Bandobast etc., there is bound to be some delay in routine correspondence as well. A short delay in the communication of the adverse remarks has occurred and the contention of the petitioner that the remarks ought to be set aside on this ground may not be accepted. 7. It is true that in the Government Resolution dated 31.03.1989, it is stated that remarks such as “Theek” (Ordinary), “Sarerash” (Average), “Sadharan” (Ordinary), “Samanya” (Ordinary), “Nibhai lae sakay teva” (can be tolerated) are not to be used while assessing an Officer. In the Circular dated 06.07.2004, it is stated that the grading is to be done on four counts only which are, “outstanding”, “very good”, “good” and “unfit”. 4.2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Sardar Mohmed Umerbhai Makrani vs. Gujarat Rural Housing Board and others dated 29.2.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.3279 of 1998 and allied matters, more particularly Head Note. A, paragraph Nos. 7, 11 and 15 which read as under:- "(A) SERVICE LAW - Promotion - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. A, paragraph Nos. 7, 11 and 15 which read as under:- "(A) SERVICE LAW - Promotion - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14, 16 & 226 - Petitioner though was found fit for promotion denied same on an alleged irregularity - On date of decision by Selection Committee neither any departmental inquiry was pending nor was in contemplation - Held, position as on date of Departmental Promotion committee meeting is to be seen and subsequent development would not disentitle employee from getting his promotion - Further, disciplinary proceedings can be treated to have commenced only from date of issuance of charge-sheet - The Court directing to pay consequential benefits of promotion from deemed date of promotion. 7. At this stage, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India V/s. K.V.Jankiraman reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 , wherein, it is held that the disciplinary proceedings against the Government employee should be treated to have commenced only from the date of issuance of charge-sheet and not from any earlier stage, and that the “sealed cover procedure” should be resorted to only if the charge-sheet is already issued to the concerned Government employee in the case of departmental inquiry on or before the date of meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee. This view is reiterated by the Apex Court time and again. One of such judgment is in the case of Union of India and others vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak, reported in (2007)6 SCC 704 . This declaration of law was practiced more in breach than in its compliance by the authorities of the Government, which led to number of litigations and to see to it that the things are streamlined in this regard, Government thought it fit to reiterate this position of law by issuing Government Resolution dated 4th August, 2007. By the said resolution, Government has not evolved any new policy but only has reiterated the position of law in this regard which was already pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.V.Jankiraman (supra). 11. It is alleged against the petitioner that while the petitioner was working as Deputy Executive Engineer at Vallabh Vidhyanagar in the year 1985, the cement remained unused, and therefore, cement lost its strength and it became useless and thereby financial loss was caused to the Board. 11. It is alleged against the petitioner that while the petitioner was working as Deputy Executive Engineer at Vallabh Vidhyanagar in the year 1985, the cement remained unused, and therefore, cement lost its strength and it became useless and thereby financial loss was caused to the Board. For this purpose, a showcause notice was also given to the petitioner in the year 1991, which, he had responded immediately. Under these circumstances, the say of the authorities, that at the time of promotion of the petitioner in the year 1998, now we intend to initiate departmental enquiry for the said alleged irregularity, that too, after about 15 years, is the exercise of power more as a tool to withhold the promotion then to find out the truth. It is not the case of the respondent Board that they were not aware of this aspect, and therefore, there is delay. As a matter of fact, as noted above, a show-cause notice was issued in the year 1991 which was responded immediately by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the action of the authorities just to keep that issue alive for years and decades and to pull it out from drawer at the time of his promotion, if not malafide, is certainly an exercise which lacks bonafide. Therefore, on this count alone, the inquiry in question can be interfered with. However the matter does not stop there. On merits, the case of the petitioner before the respondent authorities was that he had sent periodical statements to the higher authorities from time to time about the stock lying at the station where he was working. It is pertinent to note that not only at his place, but at other places also, under the administrative control of the respondent Board, cement was lying unused and had not remained usable, and therefore, even the policy decision was taken to write off the said loss. The said decision was taken by the highest decision making authority of the Board on 4.2.1997 after recording the fact that the activity of the Board had slowed down and new work did not come to the Board and therefore cement remained unused and became useless. This problem was at seven different stations including at the station where the petitioner was working. This problem was at seven different stations including at the station where the petitioner was working. Based on this decision of the Board, consequential office order was issued on 4.4.1997, which inter alia records facts/ reasons, for the loss in question, to the effect that, the cement supplied to different stations of the Board was bought from the Gujarat State Civil Supply Corporation. The activity of the Board had slowed down and new work did not come to the Board and therefore cement remained unused and became useless. The details of such stock was as under. Sr.No. Place Stock in question 1 Adipur 156-55 2 Gandhinagar 60-15 3 Valsad 82-95 4 Valsad 79-05 5 Vallabh Vidhyanagar 100-85 6 Mehsana 1-3 7 Rajkot 5 8 Himmatnagar 29-85 Total 515.7 15. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and position of law, with regard to departmental enquiry in question, as discussed above, I find that the very initiation and continuation of the departmental enquiry in question was bad on the ground of delay as well as on merits, further this is the case of no evidence, the approach of enquiry officer was biased and perverse, the Enquiry Officer has not only not acted as a judge, not even as a prosecutor, but has acted more as a complainant. The attempt on the part of the Enquiry Officer was not to find out the truth but anyhow to reach to the conclusion how the charge can be held to be proved against the petitioner. The reasonings and conclusion recorded by the Enquiry Officer is such where no prudent man would arrive at, and while doing so even statutory rules are also flouted. The orders of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority which are based on the said Enquiry Report, thus, cannot be sustained. Further the timing demonstrates that the respondent authorities used this entire exercise as a tool to salvage the first illegality of withholding of promotion and thus it also smacks of lack of bonafide, and the same is required to be interfered with on more than one count." 4.3 In view of the above observations, learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the petitioner is entitled to get the promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from 2012 instead of 2017. He has further submitted that in view of the fact that the seniority and other benefits were not granted to the petitioner from 2012, therefore, he has incurred a huge loss in pensionary benefits. 4.4 In view of the above facts, learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the present petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be granted benefits as prayed for in the present petition. 5. Ms. Megha Chitlia, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents has objected present petition. She has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent, more particularly paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 which read as under:- "6. The petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to declare that the petitioner is entitled to have his seniority in Jamnagar District being the parent District and the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner as ASI along with persons who are promoted by the order dated 29.09.2012 is unjust, improper, bad in law and in as much as the persons namely Shailesh Ramniklal Babaria, Bhupendrasinh Babubha Jadega, Aniruddhsinh Ranjitsinh Jhala and Kishorchandra Narandas Gohil and Bipinkumar Jethalal Vala, Nalinbharthi Bhimbharti Bharti are the persons junior to the petitioner and yet they are promoted under the said order dated 20.09.2012 and be pleased to further direct the respondents to maintain seniority of the petitioner in Jamnagar District before Shailesh Ramniklal Babaria and further directed the respondents to grant promotion as ASI to the petitioner with effect from 20.09.2012 with all consequential benefits including arrears of the promotional post. 7. The deponent submits that the petitioner is not doing his duty with sincerity. During the tenure of the petitioner a total of 8 minor penalties has been imposed on him. In addition to that the petitioner had indulged in a dispute with some person at Okha Marin Police Station. At that time superior officer came to know that the petitioner has not reported to duty and made false statement to the superior officer that he was on duty. Hence, the punishment had been imposed against the petitioner i.e. stopping annual increment for 2 years. The final decision is pending before the Superintendent of Police Surendranagar. The petitioner is working as Head Constable at City B Police Station at Jamnagar District. Hence, the punishment had been imposed against the petitioner i.e. stopping annual increment for 2 years. The final decision is pending before the Superintendent of Police Surendranagar. The petitioner is working as Head Constable at City B Police Station at Jamnagar District. He failed in his duty of raiding unit of illi During the raid on such premises it had been revealed that it is well within the jurisdiction of the petitioner but there were no reasonable efforts that had been made to control illegal manufacturing and sale of liquor. On 24.08.2011 at 13:15 p.m. the petitioner had at Okha Marin Police Station, also made entry that he is present on duty but at the same time he was indulging in beating the son of one public person Sabinaben Mahmad Ansari, residing at Navagam Ged, Jamnagar. The said person also made a written compliant against the petitioner to the department. The petitioner never made any application for leave on 24.08.2011 though he was not within the jurisdiction and hence petitioner was quarreling with the complainant Sabinaben Mahmad Ansari. 8. The petitioner has been promoted as Head Constable on 16.06.2006 in the strength of seniority at Jamnagar. Now the seniority for getting promotion of A.S.I. will be stand at Surendranagar as petitioner is, transferred from Jamnagar to Surendranagar in public interest. Hence, petitioner have no right to claim for seniority at original appointment at Jamnagar. 9. The deponent humbly relied upon the Home Department Resolution dated 16.09.2000 as per the said resolution seniority can be considered from the District to which petitioner has been transferred. A copy of the Government Resolution dated 16.09.2000 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R I to this reply. In addition to that the deponent relied upon the Rules 70(8) & 70(12) of the Gujarat Police Mannual Chapter I. A copy of the same is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R II to this reply. 10. The deponent submits that as per the Home Department Resolution dated 11.07.1979 prayer made by the petitioner in the captioned petition is not tenable. A copy of the Resolution dated 11.07.1979 along with 17.10.1979 are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R III Colly to this reply. 11. The deponent further submits that the I.G.P. Rajkot has ample power to transfer any Head constable from one District to another District. A copy of the Resolution dated 11.07.1979 along with 17.10.1979 are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R III Colly to this reply. 11. The deponent further submits that the I.G.P. Rajkot has ample power to transfer any Head constable from one District to another District. On the basis of public interest the petitioner had been transferred from Jamnagar to Surendranagar. The deponent further submits that the complaint against the petitioner for misconduct is pending before the S.P., Surendranagar and there were 8 minor penalties inflicted in the past, the I.G.P. Rajkot, transferred the petitioner from Jamnagar to Surendranagar on 17.03.2012. As per the resolution dated 17.10.1979 the I.G.P. Rajkot has ample powers to transfer any Head constable from one District to another District. Hence, statement of the petitioner that he is supposed to be given seniority as per the service tenure from the date of the joining of the service is misconseived." 5.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.K. Jayaram vs. Bangalore Development Authority reported in 2022(12) SCC 815 . She has relied upon the circular issued by the Home Department with regard to the service condition of the seniority and service condition of the police constable. She has also referred to and relied upon the provision of Gujarat Police Manual, Chapter-I. 6. Against that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder and reiterated the fact that at the time of transfer, only minor penalty was imposed by the District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar and therefore, the same cannot come in way of the petitioner in considering his case for promotion for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. He has submitted that the punishment imposed by the District Superintendent of Police is prior to the date of transfer and on the basis of that communication the impugned transfer order is passed, which is absolutely illegal. Again the respondents have filed additional affidavit in reply and controvert the said aspect. 7. I have perused the material and relevant papers available on record of the petition. I have also considered the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 8. Again the respondents have filed additional affidavit in reply and controvert the said aspect. 7. I have perused the material and relevant papers available on record of the petition. I have also considered the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 8. The issue involved in present petition is that whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from 2012 instead of 2017, though the petitioner was facing a departmental punishment imposing different punishment orders and whether the action of the respondent is unjust, arbitrary and against the settled principle of law. 9. According to my view, first of all the petitioner has not disclosed the fact in the petition that he was facing different punishment orders passed by the respondent and all these punishments were continued during the process of promotion held by DPC from 2012 to 2015. The date and number of different punishment orders are as under:- DPC Date Punishment Order No. 19.9.2012 717 of 2011 dtd. 22.9.2011 15.3.2013 416 of 2012 dtd.21.11.2012 31.7.2014 33 of 2013 dtd.23.4.2013 21.9.2015 33 of 2013 dtd.23.4.2013 10. In view of the above, on this very ground the petition deserves to be dismissed for not disclosing the true and correct fact before this Court and not come with the clean hands before this Court. However, it is necessary to take into account the aspect that because of non consideration of name of the petitioner from 2012 to 2017 for promotion whether any illegally or arbitrariness on the part of the respondent is there or not. 11. It appears that in 2012, the petitioner was transferred form Jamnagar to Surendrangar and thereafter, his service condition and service book were also transferred at Surendrangar. Considering the service condition of the petitioner, his name was entered into the merit list maintained at Surendranagar. The said fact is mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply which is not controverted by learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that in 2017 the promotion was granted to the petitioner by the order of District Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar and therefore, he is aware that his service condition is now maintained by the District Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar and not by District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar. It is an admitted fact that in 2017 the promotion was granted to the petitioner by the order of District Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar and therefore, he is aware that his service condition is now maintained by the District Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar and not by District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar. Considering the fact that the petitioner is also aware with the punishment imposed by different punishment orders and lastly in 2015 when DPC was held at that time he was facing the punishment being punishment order number 33 of 2013 and that was continued to the effect upto the date of 30.6.2016 and on completion of that punishment order, the name of the petitioner is forwarded to the DPC which was made on 25.1.2017. 12. As the petitioner has completed all these punishment in 2016 and that therefore his case was considered on completion of that punishment order in 2017 and therefore the respondent has not committed any arbitrariness or illegality in considering the case of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was rightly promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from 2017 in view of the fact that the petitioner is entitled for promotion only after completion of all the punishment orders and therefore, his name was recommended by the District Superintendent of Police, Surendrangar to the DPC and on the recommendation received from the District Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar, the promotion was granted to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. In that view of the matter, the prayer made in the petition does not deserve to be granted. It is relevant to note herein that now the petitioner was retired from service in 31.1.2020. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, present petition does not deserve to be entertained and the same deserves to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, present petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any stands vacated forthwith.