O.S. TIWARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar dated 07.10.2010.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable in the year 1974 after following due process of law and thereafter he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1992. The petitioner was lastly promoted as PSI in the year 1998 and at present the petitioner is holding the said post i.e. Police Sub-Inspector in Traffic Branch in Ahmedabad City. In the Resolution dated 2.2.2005 it was specifically mentioned that in the Annual Confidential Report (for short, "ACR") the remark "ordinary" should not be used. However, in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2004-05 in four places the remark "ordinary" was mentioned. Therefore, a negative remark was shown in the ACR of the petitioner for the said period. Being aggrieved by the said remarks, the petitioner submitted a representation and requested to expunge the said remarks and has demonstrated that he has been working on the said post since last many years with sheer diligence and honesty. Pursuant to the representation dated 12.10.2009, the respondents had considered the representation of the petitioner positively and passed order dated 2.3.2010 wherein the adverse remarks of the petitioner were expunged and the same were ordered to be considered as "good". Thus, as on date there is no adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner.

(3.) The respondent authorities, by order dated 31.8.2009 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion on the aforesaid two grounds, though the adverse remarks of the petitioner were expunged and the same were substituted as "good" by the respondents. Thereafter, different gradation lists of unarmed PSI in the State were published but ultimately the petitioner was declined his legitimate right of giving promotion. On giving representations on his grievance, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 7.10.2010 rejecting the representations stating therein that the adverse remarks of the petitioner were expunged and substituted as "good" is taken without following due process of law and therefore, the same could not be considered and also considering the fact that the petitioner is punished by the respondents by order dated 12.7.2005 for the alleged charge against him pursuant to the departmental inquiry wherein he was placed on lower scale for one year. Hence this petition.