SANDEEP VASHISHTH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL, ITBPF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to the respondents to promote him w.e.f. 25/4/2017 instead of 16/3/2020.

(2.) The petitioner w.e.f. 5/5/2007 joined respondent-Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (for short 'ITBP') as Constable (General Duty). In September' 2011, he was selected and sent on deputation to National Security Guards (for short 'NSG'). The respondent found that petitioner during 2012-2016 has been made payment by them in addition to the payments made by NSG. On the asking of respondent-ITBP, the petitioner returned excess payment to the tune of Rs.17,02,156.00 on 12/6/2017. The petitioner remained on deputation till 31/12/2016. The petitioner re-joined his parent department in 2017. The respondent-ITBP vide order dtd. 24/4/2017 (Annexure P-3), promoted him along with other employees. The promotion was granted subject to conditions contemplated in the aforesaid order. The respondent-ITBP formed an opinion that petitioner does not comply with Condition No.(d) of the promotion order dtd. 25/4/2017 (Annexure P-3), thus, he is not eligible to promotion. The petitioner was thereafter actually promoted w.e.f. 16/3/2020.

(3.) Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate submits that on 25/4/2017 no departmental or vigilance matter was pending against the petitioner, thus, he could not be denied fruit of the promotion. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment of Apex Court in Union of India and others v. K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109. The Government of India has issued Office Memorandum dtd. 25/10/2004 (Annexure P-9) which is in consonance with judgment of Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman (supra). In the said memorandum, it has been categorically provided that promotion shall not be withheld merely on the basis of suspicion or doubt or where the matter is under preliminary investigation and has not reached the stage of charge sheet.