NARENDRA SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 10-7-2013 (Annexure P-1) by which petitioner's promotion to the post of Inspector vide order dated 31-5-2013 has been cancelled purportedly on the premise that the Review Petition No. 385/2012 filed by the State Government was pending consideration before the High Court seeking review of order dated 4-5-2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 2959/2012. It is submitted that the petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 2959/2012 had challenged the legality and validity of the order of punishment whereby penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect for one year was imposed upon the petitioner. That writ petition was allowed in the light of the judgment passed by the Principal Seat in Dal Chand Ahirwar's case in Writ Petition No. 2897/2007 and one , Nandkishore vs. State of M.P., 2012 1 MPLJ 67 on the premise that the order of punishment imposed by the authority of the cadre of Superintendent of Police was contrary to the rules occupying the field. Though the aforesaid order dated 4-5-2012 was reviewed by this Court vide order dated 17-7-2013 in Review Petition No. 385/2012, however, the impugned punishment order therein dated 30-7-2011 outlived its life after expiry of one year, i.e., on 30-7-2012. There is no cavil of doubt that the DPC for promotion to the post of Inspector was convened on 4-5-2013. The petitioner's candidature for aforesaid promotional post was considered and found fit. Accordingly, promotion order dated, 31-5-2013 was passed. In view of the aforesaid facts, the punishment order dated 30-7-2011 did not exist after 30-7-2012 and, therefore, as on the date of consideration, i.e., 4-5-2013 by the DPC, there was no punishment, hence, the promotion order issued on 31-5-2013 was in fact in accordance with the recommendations made by the DPC and was legal and proper. Hence, cancellation of promotion order for the sole reason that the Review Petition No. 385/2012 was pending consideration before the High Court is unsustainable in the eyes of law as well as on facts.

(2.) The respondents in their counter-affidavit have justified the impugned order dated 10-7-2013 solely on the ground that the promotion was accorded to the petitioner in view of the order passed by this Court while allowing Writ Petition No. 2959/2012 and since the review petition against the said order was pending consideration, the promotion accorded to the petitioner was set aside. No other reason is assigned in the counter-affidavit to justify passing of the impugned cancellation order dated 10-7-2013.

(3.) Heard the Counsel for the parties. Petitioner was visited with the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect for one year by order dated 30-7-2011. The relevance of penalty so imposed, in the matter of consideration and promotion, may be understood if during currency of the penalty candidature of the delinquent petitioner was considered by the DPC and promotion order was issued, but after the penalty outlived its life, the same cannot be said to be relevant either in the matter of consideration by the DPC or actual promotion being accorded pursuant to the DPC recommendations. Undisputedly, the penalty in this case was imposed on 30-7-2011, i.e., withholding one increment with cumulative effect for one year. The period of penalty expired on 30-7-2012, hence, consideration of petitioner's claim on 4-5-2013 and promotion ordered on 31-5-2013 pursuant to the DPC recommendations cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the rules. Merely because review petition was filed and pending consideration , promotion order accorded to the petitioner ought not to have been cancelled. In any case, even if review petition was allowed and writ petition is restored to its original number for prosecution, pendency of the writ petition also shall have no relevance as the punishment period stood over. In view of the aforesaid premises, the impugned order of cancellation of promotion dated 10-7-2013 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have been legally promoted w.e.f. 31-5-2013 and he be sent for required training as provided for under the rules for promotion to the post of Inspector.