ASI JAI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The present writ petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned show cause notice dated 13.11.2013 issued to petitioner No.1 and also the similar show cause notices issued to other petitioners as well.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that upto 29.09.2011, District Karnal was part and parcel of Rohtak Range. Thereafter, it was bifurcated from Rohtak Range and was made a separate range i.e., Karnal Range. The petitioners were promoted as ASIs with effect from 09.09.2011 and their claim was that as since their juniors were promoted in Rohtak Range, so after creation of new Range, the petitioners were also entitled for promotion from the date their juniors were promoted. Learned counsel further submits that subsequently, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners inspite of the fact that they were entitled to promotion in Rohtak Range only but nothing was mentioned regarding their seniority at the time of bifurcation of Rohtak Range and Karnal Range. A letter was issued by Director General of Police, Haryana to Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range stating therein that subsequent order dated 24/25.10.2011, whereby, the petitioners were promoted from the back date was not correct, legal or justified and all promotion orders be withdrawn. Subsequent thereupon, a show cause notice like Annexure P-4 was issued to all the petitioners. Learned counsel also submits that neither any opportunity of hearing was given nor any notice prior to that was given and only on the basis of the communication sent by Director General of Police, Haryana, show cause notices were issued, which are not only illegal but unlawful as well. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners were assigned seniority with effect from 09.09.2011 on the basis of Range Level and they were promoted with effect from the date i.e., 09.09.2011 when their juniors have been promoted in Rohtak Range. The petitioners were having a right to be promoted in Rohtak Range itself but subsequently, on coming into existence of the Karnal Range, the action of passing of promotion orders was justified and lawful, yet show cause notices have been issued.

(3.) Learned State counsel submits that Karnal Range came into existence on 29.09.2011 and promotion orders were not passed by the Competent Authority as the same have been passed after 29.09.2011. Learned State counsel further submits that a reasoning has been given in the letter issued by Director General of Police, Haryana and on the basis of that letter, the impugned show cause notices were issued. Learned State counsel also submits that only one show cause notice issued to petitioner No.1 has been challenged and other notices have not been challenged in the present writ petition whereas the petitioners are more than one. In absence of those show cause notices, the same can not be quashed. Learned State counsel also submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as premature as reply to the show cause notice has not been submitted by the petitioners and without submitting their reply, the present writ petition has been filed.