COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OA No.3555/2009 filed by Manoj Kumar the respondent of W.P.(C) No.7689/2010 has been disposed of by the Tribunal directing the petitioners to constitute a review DPC and to consider the case of Manoj Kumar for promotion to the post of Inspector without taking into account the fact of temporary forfeiture or inclusion of his name in the secret list, with further direction that if found fit for promotion he would be duly promoted to the post of Inspector from the date persons immediate junior to him were promoted. It may be noted that Manoj Kumar was questioning the promotion orders dated 1.12.2007, 18.9.2008, 16.1.2009 and 24.9.2009. Evidenced by para 7 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has not granted any relief with respect to the promotional order dated 1.12.2007 holding that the validity of the concerned DPC cannot be questioned. The Tribunal has held that non consideration of his case in the subsequent DPCs was ex facie not in consonance with law. Further, the Tribunal has relied upon its decision dated 23.2.2009 allowing OA No.2130/2006 HC Anumial Haq Vs. Govt. of NCT and Ors. which interpreted Rule 8(d) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 to mean that unless penalty of forfeiture of approved service was permanent, only then said penalty could be considered while evaluating the ACRs of the candidates and a penalty of forfeiture of approved service which was temporary was to be ignored.

(2.) OA No.3489/2009 filed by Surya Prakash the respondent of W.P.(C) No.6886/2010 has been disposed of with a similar direction and on the same process of reasoning by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in HC Anumial Haqs case. It may be noted that Surya Prakash was like wise challenging promotional orders dated 1.12.2007, 18.9.2008, 16.1.2009 and 24.9.2009.

(3.) SINCE the Tribunal has not dealt with the defence of the bar of limitation as aforenoted pertaining to the promotional orders dated 1.12.2007 and 18.9.2008, and only pertaining to Manoj Kumar has held no taint qua him with respect to the order dated 1.12.2007 and thus qua Surya Prakash the promotional order dated 1.12.2007 has been accepted as adversely affecting his right and for the reason the Tribunal has not dealt with the applicable office memorandums in force at the time DPCs met and based on the recommendations whereof the two promotional orders were issued, said issues need to re-decided by the Tribunal and for which we shall be passing a formal direction at the end of our decision to remand the matter before the Tribunal for fresh adjudication qua said two promotional orders.