SAMU MURMU Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had sought a review DPC for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Executive) against the ST quota from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police from the date his juniors were promoted and had filed an original application No. 3647/2009 titled Samu Murmur Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi which was dismissed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 6th December, 2009 which is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The Departmental Promotion Committees held on 30th November, 2007 and 16th September, 2008 considered the name of the petitioner for the Promotion List-F (Executive) and since the petitioner did not achieve the bench mark, both the DPCs did not recommend his name. The bench mark for consideration was the relevant record for the past ten years. The Tribunal while considering the case of the petitioner noted that he had eight censures during the period 13th June, 2001 to 3rd January, 2007 and relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 17266/2006, Commissioner of Police vs. Mr. Jawahar Singh decided on 17th February, 2009 holding that while considering the employee for promotion, his whole record can be taken into consideration by DPC and after considering the record, if the promotion is denied then that cannot be treated as illegal or unjustified. In Mr. Jawahar Singh (supra) the police official had been awarded four censures during the period 1996 to 2001. It was held that even after the expiry of the period of censures, the DPC can consider the overall record and the nature of punishment and on consideration, if comes to the conclusion that employee is not fit to be promoted, the Court is not to interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the Departmental Promotion Committee which obviously is based on objective material.

(2.) In the case of petitioner he has eight censures from 13th June, 2001 to 3rd January, 2007. The bench mark for promotion from Sub- Inspector to Inspector is consideration of the relevant record for the past ten years and therefore, the DPC has considered the record for the period 2001-2007 also during which the petitioner had been awarded censures eight times.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically contended that all the censures were on account of bias of the seniors against the petitioner as he had not assisted the seniors in illegal work. However, no particulars have been given about the alleged illegal work which was allegedly was to be got done from the petitioner and on his refusal, it led to alleged bias. In any case, if the censures were awarded to the petitioner, he should have challenged the same at the appropriate time alleging bias or whatsoever grounds were available to him. Since the censures awarded to the petitioner during the period 13th June, 2001 to 3rd January, 2007 became final, the petitioner cannot turn around and contend that the said censures are not to be considered on the grounds now alleged by the petitioner. The Departmental Promotion Committee has objectively considered the relevant record according to the bench mark and if has come to a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion, there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with such a decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee and consequently, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal dismissing the original application of the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent to hold a review DPC for the petitioner for promotion from Sub-Inspector to Inspector (Executive).