Allowed

Pradeep Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Oct 2021WPC/2145/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting a Constable's request to resume Senior Promotion Course training. The petitioner, exonerated from a charge based on an anonymous letter, argued he should retain seniority invested during the suspension. The Court held he is entitled to his seniority and financial benefits upon completing the remaining training.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner directed to complete remaining training; seniority and benefits granted.

Pradeep Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 2145 of 2021

¶4

Pradeep Toppo

¶5

…. …. Petitioner

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP), Ranchi.

¶10

Commandant, IRB-3, Chatra.

¶11

…. …. Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioners : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to A.G.

¶16

¶17

2/ 21.10.2021 Heard the parties.

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the Order No. 515/2020 contained in Memo No. 1560 dated 13.11.2020 (Annexure-7), passed by the Commandant, IRB-3, Chatra (respondent No.5), whereby the representation for allowing him to re-join the ongoing SPC training session along with his batch-mates has been rejected on the ground that he was absent for more than 10% in the training course.

¶19

The facts of the case lie in a short compass. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB)-3, Chatra on 26.6.2008. On 16.6.2019, the petitioner was sent for Senior Promotion Course (S.P.C.) training, which is a compulsory training of 120 days for promotion to the next higher post. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was undergoing training, a charge was framed against him on the basis of an ‘anonymous letter’, alleging therein that the petitioner was demanding Rs.2000/- from other trainees in lieu of getting their training process completed at the earliest. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended vide Order No. 20/2019 dated 15.11.2019 and sent back to his parent department. The petitioner submitted his show cause reply taking shelter of Rule 1212 of the Police Manual. Finding the show cause reply satisfactory, the petitioner was fully exonerated from the alleged charge. Upon being fully exonerated in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner made a representation on 5.9.2020 requesting the respondents to allow him to

¶20

¶21

continue remaining SPC training along with his batch mates. The petitioner also stated in his representation that he had already underwent 75 days out of 120 days of training and if he is not allowed to re-join the training process, he shall become junior amongst his own batch mates and will also lose consequential benefits for no fault on his part. However, the said representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 13.11.2020 and hence, this writ petition.

¶22

Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the impugned order rejecting the representation for allowing him to re-join the ongoing SPC training course along with his batch-mates is neither sustainable in law nor on facts, inasmuch as, the very complaint was itself not maintainable in view of Rule 1212 of the Police Manual and as such, the respondents being aware of the fact, exonerated the petitioner from the charge. Further learned counsel submits that in view of the Rule 660-A of the Jharkhand Police Manual, he may be allowed to rejoin the training process, as he has already completed 75 days of the training out of 120 days along with his batch mates, so that his seniority shall remain intact.

¶23

Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned AC to AG vehemently opposes the contention of Mr. Diwakar Upadhayay, and submits that though the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, but he is permitted to join training with other constables in the next session. As a departmental proceeding was initiated against him, though exonerated from the charge, his seniority cannot be retained and no financial benefits can be extended to him. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner cannot be prejudiced to the order of rejection as he has been allowed to complete training with other constables.

¶24

Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties across the Bar, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, on the basis of an unknown letter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, but the petitioner was fully exonerated from the charge taking shelter of Rule 1212 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. Rule 1212 thereof reads as under:-

¶25

¶26

“No enquiry should be made on anonymous or pseudonymous petitions even though it may contain seemingly some specificmaterials.”

¶27

7. Further Rule 660-A of the Police Manual reads thus:-

¶28

“660-A. ( i) No direct recruitment shall be made in this rank. Promotion shall be con fined to Naiks/Constables who have done the senior leaders course according to Rule 684(2). Every year in July the Superintendent shall review the list of such Naiks/ Constables which should be arranged according to the date of passing the senior leaders course and select those who are fit for promotion. He will publish their names in district order and if anyone wants to represent he will have to submit his representation within l4 days from the receipt of this order. The Superintendent shall consider these representations in their presence and if any representation is rejected by the Superintendent that Naik/Constable can submit his representation to Range Deputy inspector-General. Thereafter. all these names shall be considered by the Superintendent and promotions shall be made from that list serially.

¶29

(ii) Range Deputy Inspector-General shall carefully consider the positions of promotion in the districts of his range and if there is a very marked variation, he shall take steps to bring uniformity as far as possible by transfers so that a senior Niak/ Constable is not left without getting a chance of promotion in a certain district for long.

¶30

(iii) Those promoted from the rank of Naiks/Constables shall be on probation for one year.”

¶31

Since the respondents being aware of the fact, they have fully exonerated the petitioner from the charge, as the very compliant itself was not maintainable, the petitioner is entitled for retaining his seniority and other financial benefits and he is also entitled to complete further training, as he has already completed 75 days of training, out of 120 days.

¶32

As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, the order No. 515/2020 contained in Memo No. 1560 dated 13.11.2020 (Annexure-7) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to send the petitioner to complete the remaining period of SPC training in the next session and upon completion of training, the petitioner shall be extended the benefit of seniority and other consequential benefits from the date it has fallen due.

¶33

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed.

¶34

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

¶35

R.Kr.

Pradeep Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pitam Kahar Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Vijay Kumar Paul Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Pr Secretary Department of Home

Samiruddin Ansari Vs the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Kameshwar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand

Sunita Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Minhajuddin Hasan Vs the State of Jharkhand