A retired Sub-Inspector sought promotion and quashing of adverse A.C.Rs. The single-judge court dismissed the petition noting no material error in the reports and lack of eligibility for relief post-retirement.
Petition dismissed due to retirement and unchallenged adverse records.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP. No. 524 of 1994 Date of Decision: 3.2.2010.
Om Parkash Sub Inspector
--Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ***
PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)
The petitioner on being discharged from the Indian Navy in the year 1975 was appointed as ASI in the Haryana Police on the basis of the recommendations of the Services Selection Board in the year 1977. On passing the necessary basic training and completion of probation, he was confirmed as ASI w.e.f. 1.5.1980. He was brought on promotion list of 'E' w.e.f. 1.8.1985. The petitioner sought benefit of the military service and made representation, whereupon, he was given the benefit of promotion as S.I. w.e.f. 10.11.1979. The date of his confirmation as S.I is 1.12.1984 vide order dated 10.3.1993. It is stated that the petitioner earned as many as 55 commendation certificates with cash awards between the period 1983 to 1992. In the year 1984 a gradation list was issued, wherein the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 89 and respondents no.5 and 6 have been placed at Sr. Nos. 90 and 92 respectively. The petitioner and private respondents were confirmed as S.I vide order dated 13.3.1989. Promotions were made to the rank of Inspector vide order dated 30.1.1990. Private respondents, who are junior to the petitioner were promoted, whereas the petitioner was not
CWP. No. 524 of 1994 -2-
considered for promotion. Petitioner was conveyed adverse A.C.Rs vide letter dated 27.6.1984 (Annexure P-8).
From the perusal of the aforesaid communication it appears that not only certain deficiencies were pointed out the petitioner was held to be a dishonest person. The petitioner filed CWP No. 11061 of 1992 before this Court challenging the adverse A.C.Rs and also sought the benefit of military service. This petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 1.2.1993 with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months. It appears that consequent upon the aforesaid order the petitioner has been granted the benefit of military service but his representation against the adverse A.C.Rs stands rejected vide order dated 26.8.1993 (Annexure P-15). Vide another order dated 9.9.1993 his claim for promotion to the rank of Inspector has also been rejected on account of his adverse A.C.Rs in which his honesty stands doubtful. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction for his promotions to the posts of Inspector and D.S.P with effect from the date persons junior to him were promoted. The further prayer is for the quashment of the A.C.Rs for the period w.e.f. 19.5.1983 to 31.3.1984 (Annexure P-8).
In the reply filed, the respondents have referred to adverse A.C.Rs of the petitioner and it is stated that on account of adverse A.C.Rs petitioner was not considered for promotion. Not only this, respondents have further referred to conduct of the petitioner. In one case the petitioner is said to have forced the parties to compromise instead of registering the case, where a bullet injury was sustained by a person. In another case, it is stated that in an accident case he mis-appropriated Rs.2,000/- and a wrist
CWP. No. 524 of 1994
-3-
watch of a person.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
No material has been placed on record to indicate that the adverse entries against the petitioner were bad in law in any manner. The petitioner's adverse reports have been approved by the Appellate Authority and his representations stand rejected. On account of these circumstances, petitioner was not entitled to be promoted from the date his juniors were promoted. The petitioner has now retired from service. No relief can be granted to him at this stage.
Petition dismissed.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE
3.2.2010. lucky
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired police sub-inspector with adverse A.C.Rs filed under Article 226 to claim backdated promotion and quashing of reports.
Whether the High Court can grant promotion relief to an officer who has already retired from service.
Whether adverse A.C.Rs and lack of relief due to retirement mandate dismissal of the writ petition.
Om Parkash
State of Haryana
Permod Kohli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
