JORAWAR SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jorawar Singh, a Sub Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, primarily praying that the adverse remarks contained in his ACR for the period 01.04.1999 to 19.12.1999 be expunged, and in consequence thereof, to direct the respondents to conduct review DPC to consider his promotion with effect from the date his juniors have been promoted, with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The undisputed facts as may emanate from the pleadings of parties and the accompanying documents for the twin reliefs as mentioned above, reveal that that the applicant was appointed as Sub -Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police in the year 1985. It is his case that he was falsely implicated in a corruption case vide FIR No.46/99 under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, PS A.C. Branch, and was placed under suspension vide order dated 20.12.1999. His ACR for the period 01.04.1999 to 19.12.1999 containing adverse remarks, which were directly related to his involvement in the criminal case as mentioned above, was communicated to him on 26.06.2000. Being aggrieved, the applicant made representation against the adverse remarks contained in his ACR aforesaid on 29.07.2000. Meanwhile, on 21.12.2000 an order initiating regular departmental enquiry against him also came to be passed, which was also on the same set of allegations as were subject matter of the FIR aforesaid. However, vide order dated 06.11.2001, the departmental enquiry was kept in abeyance. On 05.08.2005, for the same reason, i.e., involvement of the applicant in the criminal case, his name was brought on the secret list of doubtful integrity. On 28.06.2010, the applicant was acquitted in the criminal case registered against him. That being so, vide order dated 08.03.2011, the departmental enquiry, which was kept in abeyance, was dropped, suspension of the applicant was revoked, and his period of suspension was ordered to be treated as spent on duty. On 10.05.2011 the name of the applicant was removed from the secret list of doubtful integrity with effect from the date of its inception. In view of the significant developments, as mentioned above, the applicant vide representation dated 12.05.2011 sought promotion, as his juniors had been promoted in the interregnum, but the said representation came to be rejected vide order dated 01.06.2011 stating that DPCs of the year 2005 and onwards had found him unfit on all occasions. It is the case of the applicant that only because of the adverse remarks in his ACR as mentioned above and his name having been brought on the secret list of doubtful integrity, he was overlooked in the matter of promotion. He submitted another representation dated 20.06.2011 seeking expunction of the adverse remarks, but on 07.09.2011 he was informed that his representation dated 29.07.2000 in that regard had already been rejected vide order dated 14.03.2001. It is further the case of the applicant that through information under Right to Information Act, it came to his knowledge that he has been ignored for promotion only because of the adverse entries in his ACR for the period 01.04.1999 to 19.12.1999, and that except the ACR for the said period, all his ACRs are either outstanding or very good, and further that once the enquiry has been dropped, his suspension has been revoked and the entire suspension period has been ordered to be treated as spent on duty, and his name has been removed from the secret list of doubtful integrity with effect from the date of inception, the adverse remarks, which were recorded only due to the allegations contained in the criminal case in which the applicant has since been acquitted, require to be expunged. Despite rejection of the representation of the applicant in that regard in 2001, which, it is the case of the applicant, was communicated to him only in 2011, in view of the developments referred to above, and in particular his acquittal in the criminal case, the matter has to be re -visited. The juniors of the applicant were promoted in the year 2003 onwards and the applicant has been left out all this while.

(3.) Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and filed their counter reply, but as mentioned above, there is no dispute on the basic facts.