Disposed

Mozibur Rahman v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Aug 2022WP(C)/1682/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-promotion after initiating criminal proceedings and penalty. Court directed respondents to conduct a review DPC and ensure the petitioner's case is placed in a sealed cover for promotion consideration.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to ensure a review DPC is held, thereby following the sealed cover procedure for the petitioner's promotion case.

Mozibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010045442022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1682/2022

¶5

MOZIBUR RAHMAN

¶6

S/O- LATE AKKASH ALI, R/O- ANUPAM NAGAR, ROSE LANE, P.O. AND P.S. HATIGAON, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF POLICE (COMMN) ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (COMMN)

¶10

ASSAM

¶11

Page No.# 2/3

¶12

ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

03.08.2022

¶18

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate for all the respondents.

¶19

The petitioner’s case is that juniors of the petitioner have been promoted to the post of S.I. from A.S.I (Assam Police Radio Organization) without considering the case of the petitioner. He submits that a case has been registered against the petitioner in All Women P.S. Case No.210/2013 under Section 448/347/325/376/307/511 IPC. He submits that a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner which ended with the imposition of penalty of “Black Mark” to the petitioner. However, the respondent authorities subsequently removed the punishment of “Black Mark”.

¶20

Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that Charge-Sheet No.03/17 has been submitted in connection with All Women P.S. Case No.210/2013. He further submits that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2006 issued by the Department of Personnel (B) Department, Government of Assam, a person who is under suspension or in respect of whom a charge-sheet

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

has been submitted or in respect whom a criminal charge is pending, cannot be promoted, until he is exonerated of the charges and the recommendations of the DPC in respect of the said person would have to be placed in a sealed cover.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶24

In the case of Union of India & Others vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Others, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, the Apex Court has held that when a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to an employee, it can be said that the criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee and the sealed cover procedure is resorted to, only after the charge-sheet is issued. Further, in view of the Office Memorandum dated 09.095.2006 issued by the Department of Personnel (B) Department, Government of Assam, the petitioner cannot be promoted to the post of S.I., as he has got a criminal proceeding initiated against him and the case of the petitioner would have to follow the sealed cover procedure. Only after a final decision is passed by the learned Criminal Court can the sealed cover be opened. At the time the juniors of the petitioner were considered by the DPC for promotion to S.I. from A.S.I, the case of the petitioner should also have been considered and kept in a sealed cover. If the same has not been done by the concerned DPC, the respondents shall ensure that a review DPC is held, who shall thereafter follow the sealed cover procedure.

¶25

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Mozibur Rahman v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mozibur Rahman v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

GS-176550L Junior ENGINEEREandM Mallesh R and Anr. Vs Bharat Khera and 3 Ors.

Dr. Putul Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dr. (Mrs) Ranjumoni Konwar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Anil Das Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Shima Ahmed Vs the Union of India and 9 Ors.

Jiban Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.