NAHABALESHWAR GENU DEVALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Maharasthra Administrative Tribunal dated 2nd September, 2003 in Original Application No. 167/2003. In the original petition filed in the MAT the petitioner had challenged the order dated 8.3.2001 issued by the Commandant-Respondent No.3 and the order passed in the appeal dated 13.1.2003 by Deputy Inspector General, State Reserve Police Force. By order dated 8.3.2001 time bound promotion given to the petitioner as per Government Resolution dated 8.6.1995 was withdrawn with effect from 1.9.2000 in view of the provisions of clause 2(y) of the said G.R. as the petitioner was not found fit for regular promotion by the Departmental Promotion committee. It was also ordered that the benefit given of the higher pay scale under the said time bound promotion scheme till 1.9.2000 not to be recovered but difference in pay may be recovered after 1.9.2003 in five equal instalments. In the appeal that was filed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, a reply was filed wherein it was stated that there were two adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, wherein it is reported that the petitioner is not fit for promotion. In the original application filed by the petitioner he stated that the adverse remarks were never communicated for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. In the reply filed by the State it was pointed out that the adverse remarks were duly communicated to the petitioner and his signature has been obtained in acknowledgement. The petitioner filed a rejoinder.

(2.) In the rejoinder he for the first time admitted that his signature was obtained in relation to adverse remarks for the year 1998-99 and according to him, no such signature was obtained so far as adverse remarks for the year 1999-2000 is concerned. The MAT after considering the entire record held that the petitioner s case that the adverse remarks were not communicated to him cannot be believed because it is clear from the rejoinder that even according to the petitioner, adverse remarks for the year 1998-1999 was communicated to him. In the original application he flatly denied that any adverse remarks were ever communicated to him. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal also held that the record of the petitioner for 5 years was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and even assuming that the adverse remarks of only one of those 5 years was communicated to the petitioner, according to MAT the DPC has rightly denied the promotion to the petitioner. It is this order of the MAT dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner, which is challenged by the petitioner. We have heard the leaned Counsel for both sides.

(3.) It is clear that the promotion has been denied to the petitioner by the Departmental promotion committee after considering the record of the petitioner for a period of 5 years prior to the year 2000. It is also clear that one of the reasons why the DPC held that the petitioner is not fit for promotion is that he has earned two adverse remarks during the period of 5 years. Both adverse remarks are to the same effect that the petitioner was not fit for promotion.