RAJ NATH Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Judgment and order dated 8th October, 1997, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1729/1992, is under challenge in this writ petition. By the aforesaid order, the learned Tribunal dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner holding that he was rightly not promoted to the post of Head Constable with effect from 1st September 1988 as his name was included by the respondents in the secret list of persons of doubtful integrity.

(2.) The petitioner initially joined the Delhi Police as Constable. The Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (for short 'the Rules') for bringing the names of eligible Constables to promotion list-A. The said Committee considered the case of the petitioner along with other eligible candidates and a list was prepared after such consideration. In the said list dated 13th November, 1987, the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.64. Pursuant to the aforesaid clearance for promotion to the post of Head Constable and inclusion of his name in the promotion list-A, the petitioner along with all others whose names appear in list-A were sent to the lower school course which also he had successfully completed in June, 1988. Under Rule 13 of the Rules, once a Constable, whose name is included in list-A, successfully completes the aforesaid course, his name is brought to list-B and, thereafter, promotion orders are issued in the order of seniority. Some time in the month of September, 1988 list-B of successful candidates, who had successfully completed lower school course was prepared. The name of the petitioner was not included in the said list and, therefore, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Head Constable.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation. By order dated 12th December, 1988 the petitioner was informed that he has not been promoted due to indifferent service record. He immediately thereafter submitted a further representation pointing out that he had excellent service record and was selected by the DPC and his name was also included in list-A, which could not have been as was not possible if he had an indifferent service record. It was also pointed out that he was never intimated any adverse comments in his ACR nor any departmental inquiry or criminal prosecution was instituted against him and, therefore, there was no question of his record being indifferent The aforesaid representation submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the respondents and his name was brought to promotion list-B with effect from 19th July 1990 and he was given promotion with effect from 19th July, 1990. However, the respondents did not give promotion to the petitioner with effect from 1st September, 1988 when persons immediately junior and senior to him were given promotion. Under the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner filed an appeal addressed to the Commissioner of Police which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of Police. Even the representation filed by the petitioner to the Lt. Governor was also rejected.