Disposed

Manish Kumar Yadav v. Sanjay Singhal, Addl. Director General of Police (Establishment /Karmik) Lko.

Allahabad HC31 May 2024CAPL/2398/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A police officer whose sealed-cover promotion case was to be considered for ad hoc promotion under a 1997 government order filed a contempt application after his claim was twice mechanically rejected. The court rejected successive affidavits of compliance and summoned the respondents with full record for framing of charges.

What did the court decide?

Affidavits of compliance rejected; respondents nos. 1 and 2 directed to appear personally with complete record for framing of charges; matter listed for further hearing.

Manish Kumar Yadav vs Sanjay Singhal, Addl. Director… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2398 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Manish Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- Sanjay Singhal, Addl. Director General Of Police (Establishment /Karmik) Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Supriya Tiwari,Amit Prakash Sharma,Priyam Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 02.04.2024 passed on Writ-A No. 2627 of 2024.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in a criminal case related to the matrimonial dispute, in which, charge sheet was filed. It is further submitted that on 06.05.2022, the case of the applicant was considered for promotion in D.P.C., but the same was kept in sealed cover, due to which, the applicant requested for giving him ad hoc promotion in pursuance of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997. It is also submitted that when the grievance of the applicant was not being paid any heed by the respondentauthorities, he filed Writ-A No. 2627 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2024 with the direction to the Additional Director General of Police (Establishment)/Karmik), Police Headquarter, Lucknow to consider the claim of the petitioner-applicant in terms of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997 within a period of six weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order.

¶8

Order dated 02.04.2024 is as under.

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

¶10

With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector has been considered by the respondents and kept in sealed cover vide order dated 06.05.2022, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition.

¶12

Placing reliance on paragraph 10 of the Government order dated 28.05.1997, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the writ petition, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said Government order categorically provides that where disciplinary or criminal proceedings are expected to take a long time to be decided then after a period of one year, his claim for promotion which has been kept in sealed cover can be considered for adhoc promotion.

¶13

The learned Standing counsel does not dispute the applicability of the Government order dated 28.05.1997 in the case of the petitioner.

¶14

Accordingly, considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 3 i.e Additional Director General of Police (Establishment/Karmik), Police Head Quarter, Lucknow to consider the claim of the petitioner for adhoc promotion in terms of the Government order dated 28.05.1997 or any other Government order which may have relevance in the facts of the case.

¶15

Let such consideration be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the aforesaid order dated 02.04.2024 was passed after hearing the learned Standing Counsel and the said order was also communicated to the respondent, but when the same was not being complied with, the present contempt application was filed, in which, notice was issued. Thereafter, affidavit of compliance was filed by Mr. Surendra Singhal, Additional Director General of Police (Establishment/Karmik), Police Headquarter, Signature Building, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow on 30.08.2024 mentioning that the request of the applicant for ad hoc promotion was rejected by Mr. Prabahkar Chaudhary, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P., Lucknow on 28.08.2024 on the ground that involvement of the applicant was found in a criminal case related to the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, in which, victimization of woman is involved and looking to the seriousness of the offences,

¶17

consideration of the request of the applicant shall create possibility of affecting other police personnel, who belong to a disciplined force.

¶18

The aforesaid affidavit of compliance of Mr. Surendra Singhal was rejected vide order dated 30.08.2024 by this Court and also asked respondent no. 2 as to how on the basis of presumption, the claim of the applicant was rejected.

¶19

Order dated 30.08.2024 is reproduced as under.

¶20

"1. Affidavit of compliance filed by Shri Ram Swaroop, learned Standing Counsel duly sworn in by respondent- Sanjay Singhal, Additional Director General Of Police (Establishment /Karmik) Lucknow is taken on record.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ram Swaroop, learned Standing Counsel for respondent.

¶22

Present application has been filed with the prayer to summon and prosecute the respondent for willful defiance of the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by this Court in Writ A No.2627 of 2024 in re: Manish Kumar Yadav, PNO No.092350032 Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to some matrimonial dispute, F.I.R. No.245 of 2012 under Section 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of DP Act, P.S.- Kotwali Dehat, District- Eta was lodged by the wife of applicant, in which, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner. He further submitted that the trial is not going on and the case of promotion of applicant was considered on 06.05.2022 and it was kept in sealed cover envelop. He further submitted that in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial. As the applicant is continuously appearing before the trial court, therefore, he made application before the Competent Authority for opening sealed cover envelop in pursuance of Government Order dated 28.05.1997 but no decision was taken by the Authority. Thereafter, Writ A No.3780 of 2023 was filed which was disposed of on 22.05.2023 with the following order:

¶24

"1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Yogendra Nath Verma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

¶25

Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to open the sealed cover envelop of the petitioner and consider him giving adhoc promotion on the post of Inspector for which the D.P.C. was concluded on 06.05.2022 but petitioner's case was kept in a sealed cover on the ground that the petitioner was facing a criminal case registered at Case Crime No.245 of 2012 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, Distirct Etah in which charge-sheet had been filed, however, final decision in the case has not been rendered by the trial court till date.

¶26

Petitioner's case for promotion, therefore, was kept in sealed cover on 06.05.2022 in pursuance to the para 10 of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997, which provides that if the decision on the criminal case does not come within one year, the employee in respect of whom the sealed cover is adopted because of the pendency of the criminal case, would be considered for giving ad hoc promotion after a period of one year from the date of sealed cover procedure adopted in respect of his promotion.

¶27

Order dated 28.10.2022 issued by the S.S.P. District Badaun itself would disclose that petitioner's case for giving him ad hoc promotion would be considered after 06.05.2023. Since petitioner's case for giving him ad hoc promotion pending criminal trial in respect of Case Crime No.245 of 2012 (supra) is still pending, I direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take a decision for giving the petitioner ad hoc promotion in pursuance to the Government Order dated 28.05.1997 within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order along with appropriate application is placed before respondent No.2.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition stands disposed of. "

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the aforesaid order was communicated to the Competent Authority, thereafter, on 12.07.2023, the claim of the applicant was denied in the most mechanical manner. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant again preferred Writ A No.2627 of 2024 which was again disposed of on 02.04.2024 with the following order:

¶30

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

¶31

With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶32

¶33

¶34

The learned Standing counsel does not dispute the applicability of the Government order dated 28.05.1997 in the case of the petitioner.

¶35

¶36

Let such consideration be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. "

¶37

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Additional Director General of Police, Establishment, Police Headquarters was directed to consider the claim of the applicant for adhoc promotion in terms of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997. He further submitted that today, the affidavit of compliance is filed by respondent which clearly reveals that the claim of the adhoc promotion of the applicant is rejected on the ground that criminal trial is pending against him and till the decision of the trial, the case of promotion of the applicant cannot be considered and apprehension is also mentioned that there is a possibility of misuse of the position by the applicant.

¶38

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case of applicant was decided by Shri Prabhakar Chaudhary, DIG, Establishment but there was a direction to the respondent to decide the claim of the applicant. He further submitted that the representation of the applicant was rejected by Shri Prabhakar Chaudhary in the most mechanical manner as the alleged FIR was lodged in the year of 2012 but in the order dated 28.08.2024, in all the places, year of the crime is mentioned as 2012.

¶39

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of contempt application and affidavit of compliance, it is evident that Shri Prabhakar Chaudarhy, DIG, Establishment has not considered the intention of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997 which provides the provision for adhoc promotion in case, there is a possibility of taking more time for conclusion of departmental proceeding as well as criminal trial then the incumbent should be given adhoc promotion, therefore, affidavit of compliance filed today is hereby rejected.

¶40

List this case on 11.09.2024 at 11:30 AM.

¶41

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead Shri Shri Prabhakar Chaudarhy, DIG, Establishment as respondent no.2 in the memo of contempt application.

¶42

On the next date, respondent no.2 shall file affidavit of compliance explaining the fact that under what circumstances, on the basis of presumption, claim of applicant has been rejected, failing which, he shall appear in person before this Court along with relevant record."

¶43

Today, in place of giving explanation, as sought in the earlier order dated 30.08.2024, affidavit of compliance is filed by Mr. Prabhakar Chaudhary, Deputy Inspector General (Establishment), U.P., Lucknow, annexing another order dated 9th September, 2024, by which the claim of the applicant was rejected in a stereo type manner with the same observations, as mentioned in his earlier order dated 30.08.2024.

¶44

Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent is unable to explain that

¶45

under what circumstances, the order dated 09.09.2024 has been passed by respondent no. 2, in place of giving explanation as to how on the basis of presumption, the claim of the applicant was rejected by him.

¶46

Admittedly, there is a direction of the writ Court for taking decision by Additional Director General of Police (Establishment), Lucknow. Accordingly, affidavit filed today by Shri Prabhakar Tiwari, Director General of Police (Establishment), Lucknow is hereby rejected.

¶47

List this case on 26.09.2024 at 11.30 a.m.

¶48

On the next date, respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall appear before this Court along with complete record for framing of charges.

¶49

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 VKS

¶50

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish Kumar Yadav v. Sanjay Singhal, Addl. Director General of Police (Establishment /Karmik) Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Yadav v. Sanjay Singhal, Addl. Director General of Police (Establishment /Karmik) Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhaya Pratap Singh Vs Sri Amit Tripathi, Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, Lko.

Mansarowar Mining Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Signatory Sh. Pankaj Sharma Vs Anil Kumar Iii, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Geology and Mining, Lko.

Bahoran Singh Vs Sri Amrit Abhijat, Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and Another

Mansoor Ahamad @ Masroor Ahamad vs Mala Srivastava, District Magistrate, Rae Bareli

Sangeeta Gupta and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Madhyamik Education Lko. and 3 Others

Chandi Prasad vs Shree Arvind Kumar Singh, D.M., Balrampur