B PADMAIAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the failure of the respondents to grant him the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme (,,ACP Scheme hereafter) from the date of completion of 12 years of regular service without promotion. The petitioner also assails the order dated 12th March, 2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector, Central Industrial Security Force (,,CISF hereafter) denying the benefit of the ACP Scheme to the petitioner as well as the order dated 3rd August, 2011 passed by the Director General, CISF confirming the order of the Deputy Inspector.

(2.) THE factual narration by the petitioner is undisputed by the respondents. The petitioner who was appointed as Constable on the

(3.) THE controversy in the instant case rests on the requirement of a person successfully completing the prescribed Promotion Cadre Course (PCC) which would render him eligible for promotion. It appears that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 28th March, 1998 under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner culminated in passing of the order dated 16 th June, 2000 imposing the penalty on the petitioner for dismissal from service. The petitioners appeal came to be rejected by an order dated 27th November, 2000 while an order dated 31st March, 2001 was passed by the revisional authority dismissing his revision petition. Aggrieved by these orders in the disciplinary proceedings and in the challenge thereof, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Madras High Court by way of WP(C)No.22574/2001. This writ petition came to be allowed by the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 12th December, 2006 wherein the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority were set aside and quashed. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith "with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits".