Dismissed

Lalit Dewari v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Jul 2022WPSS/132/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Constable seeking backdated promotion as Company Commander. The court upheld the decision to deny promotion due to finalized adverse material regarding the petitioner's integrity for the reporting year and noted that quashing of criminal proceedings with compromise did not erase the prior punishment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no consequential benefits from date of junior promotions granted.

Lalit Dewari Vs State of Uttarakhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

ON THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶6

WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 132 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Lalit Dewari. ……….Petitioner

¶9

(By Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Uttarakhand & others. ...Respondent

¶12

(By Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand)

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

Petitioner was appointed as Constable in P.A.C. and subsequently, he was promoted as Platoon Commander in 2008. In the year 2015, petitioner was serving in City Petrol Unit. An F.I.R. under Section 342, 394, 120-B and 411 I.P.C. was lodged against petitioner and several other persons serving in C.P.U., on 19.09.2015 in Police Station Kathgodam. Based on the F.I.R., petitioner was arrested and he was enlarged on bail on 02.02.2016. A charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance thereupon.

¶16

However, on a Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner and other accused person, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.

¶17

¶18

4477 of 2015, initiated pursuant to the said F.I.R., were quashed based on compromise arrived at between the complainant and the accused persons.

¶19

Punishment of censure was imposed upon petitioner, vide order dated 16.11.2017. Petitioner challenged the punishment order by filing Revision Petition, which was allowed by Additional Director General of Police, vide order dated 28.12.2019, on the ground that for same charge, another co-accused was not punished.

¶20

The relief sought by petitioner in this writ petition is reproduced below:-

¶21

“A- A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider the claim of Petitioner for promotion on the post of Company Commander from the date juniors to the Petitioner were given promotion and give him all the consequential benefits w.e.f. 30.12.2020.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has apprised that after filing of the writ petition, petitioner has been promoted as Company Commander.

¶23

Petitioner has staked claim for promotion as Company Commander from the date of promotion of his juniors.

¶24

Learned State Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by Commandant, 31^st Battalian, P.A.C., Rudrapur. Perusal of the said order reveals that Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar has withheld integrity of petitioner for reporting year 2015. Thus, she submits that since integrity of petitioner for 2015 was not certified by the Competent Authority, which constitutes an adverse material against the petitioner

¶25

¶26

and in view of such adverse material, respondents were justified in not promoting the petitioner.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar was not communicated to petitioner, it cannot be relied upon to deny promotion to him, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725.

¶28

The submission, made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be attractive, in first blush, however, on deeper scrutiny, this Court does not find any substance therein. The adverse entry, namely the order of withholding petitioner’s integrity, was duly communicated to him by an order dated 25.11.2020. The said order has been enclosed as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition.

¶29

The appeal filed by petitioner against the order dated 25.11.2020 was dismissed by the Competent Authority on 02.12.2020 and the matter was not taken any further, therefore, the order of withholding petitioner’s integrity has become final.

¶30

From Perusal of paragraph no. 21 of the writ petition, it is revealed that selection for promotion was made on 29.12.2020 when Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting.

¶31

Petitioner’s appeal against the adverse entry was rejected on 02.12.2020. The order passed by Appellate Authority was not challenged before any higher forum. Thus, there was an adverse material against petitioner on the date when selection was

¶32

¶33

held. Thus, in view of that adverse material, the Departmental Promotion Committee was justified in not recommending petitioner for promotion.

¶34

Even otherwise also, even though the punishment of censure imposed upon petitioner, vide order dated 16.11.2017, was set-aside by the Revisional Authority on technical grounds, however, the fact remains that blemish cast upon the petitioner is not washed out by quashing of proceedings of criminal case registered against him under Section 342, 394, 120-B and 411 I.P.C., based on a compromise with the complainant.

¶35

Since petitioner’s integrity for the reporting year 2015 was withheld by an order dated 25.11.2020, which has attained finality, therefore, petitioner cannot claim any vested right of promotion from the date of promotion of his juniors.

¶36

In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference in the matter.

¶37

Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶38

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)

¶39

Navin

Lalit Dewari v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Dewari v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Smt. Mukesh Vs State of Uttarakhand through Its Secretary

Satish Chandra Kotnala Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ramesh Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Madhu Menka Vs Rupa Saini

Luxmi Prasad Vs State of U P through Secretary