COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. RAJENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Rajender Singh was enrolled as a Sub-Inspector in delhi Police on 19. 11. 1981. He was confirmed in the said rank with effect from 1. 3. 1985 along with his other counterparts. His case was considered for bringing his name on promotion list 'f' (Exe) with effect from 12. 8. 1994. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting for the said purpose was held in August, 1994 which found him 'unfit' for promotion on account of one major penalty of forfeiture of approved service and six minor penalties of 'censor'. The respondent challenged the imposition of the said major penalty in OA No. 1019/1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) which was set aside with all consequential benefits, on 11. 12. 1998. Review DPC was held on 18. 11. 1999 on account of effacement of the major penalty and for consideration of the case of the respondent. However for bringing his name on promotion list 'f' (Exe), on account of the aforesaid six minor penalties of censure, he was again declared 'unfit' for promotion vide order dated 29. 11. 1999. In the interregnum, the respondent was also implicated under Section 7 of the prevention of Corruption Act in case FIR No. 54/1999, which is pending.

(2.) THE respondent preferred a representation against the declaration of his being 'unfit' for promotion by the Review DPC by placing reliance on a decision of this in Court WP (C) No. 1354/2001 dated 15. 7. 2002 in the case of Vishnu Dev Madan v. Union of India and Ors. That representation was considered after a direction was issued by the Tribunal in OA No. 297/2004, by a speaking order the same was rejected by the Special Commissioner of police on 9/17. 5. 2005. Thereafter the respondent preferred OA No. 1328/2005 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act which has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 17. 6. 2006. The Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the order dated 9. 5. 2005 and directed the petitioner herein to hold the appropriate proceedings to consider promoting the respondent to the rank of Inspector (Exe.) with effect from 12. 8. 1994, and in the event of his promotion to grant him all the consequential benefits. It is against the aforesaid order dated 17. 6. 2006 that the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) THE Tribunal relied on Vishnu Dev Madan (Supra) and concluded that only 5 years record has to be considered by the DPC while considering the case of a candidate for promotion. It held that any minor punishment of censure, that is inflicted not on corruption or moral turpitude or negligence in protecting government property, but on administrative lapse, cannot be an impediment in the empanelment for promotion of Delhi Police Officer. The Tribunal observed that of the 6 punishments of censure 1 was not beyond the period of 5 years reckoned for promotion in 1994, while others are on account of absence, negligence and dis-obeying the orders of senior officers. It observed that none of the censure awarded to the Respondent was founded on corruption or moral turpitude or negligence in protecting government property. It concluded that, therefore, the said punishment of censure were not an impediment to his being promoted and that the DPC had acted illegally while refusing to empanel the Respondent in the promotion list 'f' on the basis of the said six punishments of censure.