JAI BHAGWAN SANGWAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application assails the order in Annexure-7 passed by the Deputy Commandant on 22.5.2010 reverting him to the post of Sub-Inspector from the post of Inspector.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector on 6.1.1995 after being selected through SSC. He served in such capacity at different places for 18 years. His case was considered for promotion by the D.P.C. on 30.3.2009 and he was found fit to be promoted for the post of Inspector on the basis of the recommendation of DPC. Before the petitioner was given promotion, a charge memo was issued by opposite party no.4 on the allegation of negligence in duty. The charge is that the petitioner had been intimated to attend the pre course marine training, which was scheduled to be held from 10.5.2009 to 30.5.2009 and even though he had been informed about the training, he got himself admitted in Ayurvedic Hospital, Safdarganj Hospital, New Delhi and obtained a certificate from the doctor of the said hospital on 15.5.2009 advising him for seven days bed rest in order to avoid the training programme. Accordingly, on the basis of the said allegation, charge was framed for indiscipline and disobedience of order of higher authority. He was found guilty of the charge and was imposed one day pay fine. On depositing the fine, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector under Annexure-5 on 21.8.2009. The certificate appended to the said order of promotion clearly shows that no departmental inquiry was either pending or contemplated against him and that he was not under currency of punishment. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he joined the promotional post and had drawn salary for two to three months before the reversion order was passed, the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that before the petitioner joined in the promotional post the order of reversion was passed in view of the departmental proceeding.

(3.) Shir Pattnaik learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the order in Annexure-7 basically on two grounds. The first ground taken by the learned counsel is that once the D.P.C. found the petitioner suitable for promotion, initiation of a departmental proceeding subsequent thereto cannot be a ground to deny promotion. The second ground is that the petitioner having been promoted to a substantive post and having joined the said promotional post, he could not have been reverted without following the due procedure of law.