PRADEEP DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by in action on the part of respondents whereby, promotion of the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector has been deferred even though, he was found to be fit by the Scrutiny Committee and his name was present in the fit list as well as in the order of promotion dated 30.12.2015 but despite of the aforesaid promotion, petitioner has been deferred.

(2.) It is argued that he was appointed as constable in the year 1981 and was promoted on the post of Head Constable in the year 1988 and looking to his outstanding performance, he was further promoted as ASI in the year 1988. Case of the petitioner was further considered for promotion for the post of Sub Inspector (MT) and promotion order dated 30.12.2015 was issued wherein, his name was figured at Sr.No. 5. It is alleged that the petitioner was given posting in District Gwalior after promotion and on the date of promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, there was no case pending against the petitioner. However, he was not permitted to join on the promoted post as well as charge of the post of Sub Inspector (MT) was not given to him. The petitioner has specifically stated that no criminal case was pending against him on the date of meeting of DPC and no charge sheet was issued to him. Subsequently, on 9.2.2016 charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and departmental inquiry was held. It is submitted that the date of notification of departmental inquiry is being considered as the date when the charge sheet was issued. The order of promotion of petitioner after due consideration by DPC was issued on 30.12.2015 and the charge sheet was issued on 9.2.2016 which is admittedly after promotion of the petitioner, Therefore, the authorities were having no right not to promote petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010, Union of India and Others Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar reported in (2013) 4 SCC 161 and Union of India and Others Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak reported in (2007) 6 SCC 704 and has argued that no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on the date of consideration of his case by DPC and also the charge sheet was issued subsequently thereafter. Therefore, in pursuance to the promotion order of petitioner, the respondent authorities could not have restrained the petitioner from jointing promoted post.

(3.) Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by filing return denying averments of the petition contending therein that the complaint was made against the petitioner by certain employees and the preliminary inquiry as conducted against him, report of which is dated 27.4.2015 in pursuance to which, the petitioner was placed under suspension. On 15.5.2015. Suspension of the petitioner was revoked 12.5.2015 and thereafter, regular departmental inquiry was was initiated against the petitioner by invoking provisions of Section 64 91) of the Police Regulation. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 15.7.2015. Therefore, the charge sheet was issued much prior to the issuance of promotion order. Cousnel for the respondents has drawn attention of this court to Annexure R/4 which is a letter written by SP PTS Tighra to Additional Director General of Police (Training), Bhopal and has submitted that instructions were issued on 15.7.2015 itself for preparation of charge sheet and list of documents to conduct departmental inquiry. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter, following charge was levied against the petitioner :