REWAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the applicant as pleaded in this original application is that he was appointed as a Constable and joined the HP. Police Department oh April 21, 1980 to work on the executive side. Later he was approved to work in the Executive Clerical Cadre vide order No. PHQ No. Estt. 1 (6) ECC -21/89 -24486 dated March16, 1990 and has been working as clerk (extra hand) in the said section in the office of respondent No. 3 since that date. The applicant has been awarded several merit certificates has been placed as Annexures -A/2 to A./7. However, the applicant received an order no. 45403 -8 dated December 26,. 1996 issued by respondent No. 3 adjusting the applicant in Police Line Kaithu. A copy of this order is annexed as Annexure - A/8. The applicant has been transferred by these orders from the office of respondent No. 3 where he was performing Clerical duties in Police Line Kaithu. It has been alleged that nature of duties in Police Line Kaithu is entirely different than those of the previous post. Applicant made a representation dated January 1, 1997 against these orders. He was informed by memo dated February 6, 1997 from Deputy Inspector General of Police (Southern Range) that the representation of the applicant had been considered and rejected. The applicant was also given a copy of Annexure -AA10 which is a memo dated January 28, 1997 from Director General of Police to Dy. Inspector General of Police (Southern Range) informing him that the applicant who was approved for executive clerical Cadre as (extra hand) Accounts branch vide order dated March 16, 1990, had been reverted to District Executive Force in view of a report submitted by I Superintend of Police District. The grievance of the applicant is that he was never interned about the report which was submitted by Superintendent of Police to Director General of Police. On receipt of Annexure -A/11 the applicant made another representation to Director General of Police on March 20, 1997 as per Annexure -A/12 but he received no response from the respondents on this representation. The present original application has been filed with the following prayer: (i) That the respondents be directed to furnish the applicant a copy of report sent by respondent No. 3 vide his letter no. 9323/Spl. Dated December 27, 1996 on the basis of which the applicant has been removed/decadrised, so that he may be aware of the allegations, if any against him; (ii) Respondents be directed to provide the applicant with a reasonable opportunity of hearing so that he can offer an explanation about the charges leveled against him in the said communication, before any action detrimental to his career such as removal/decadrisation is taken by the respondents; (iii) Respondents be directed to allow the applicant to continue working as a clerk (Extra hand) in Accounts Section of respondent No. 3 where he had been working since 1990; (iv) Annexure -A/8 and A/10 may be quashed in the interest of justice; (v) That the respondents be directed to regularise the applicant in t\)e Executive Clerical Cadre (ECC) since there is a vacancy and he is the senior most official for regularisation.

(2.) This original application has however, been opposed by the respondents in their reply filed on August 20, 1997. It has been admitted by the respondents that the applicant had been approved as Extra hand in the Executive Clerical Cadre (Accounts branch) from the year 1990 but he could not be finally absorbed due to non -availability of vacancies. It has also been stated in the reply that there are no Recruitment & promotion Rules for Executive Clerical Cadre and as per practice, applications are invited from the General Constabulary and personnel having aptitude for the clerical cadre. They are approved as Extra hand and put on duty in the respective Branches so that they may acquire efficiency. That it has been specifically laid down in the instructions that in case any constable does not take interest to learn the work, on receipt of detailed report, he can be considered for retention/ removal from the Executive clerical cadre. That the applicant had not been found suitable for Executive clerical cadre and had been censured twice during this period. That the applicant while posted as Bill clerk (medical Reimbursement) had tempered with a medical bill and FIR No. 236/96 was registered against the applicant and he was arrested during the course of investigation. That the applicant also remained willfully absent during November and December 1996 without permission of the Competent Authority and no leave was due to the applicant at that time. Keeping in view the registration of a case and indiciplined behaviour/inefficiency. Respondent No. 2 3 recommended the case of the applicant to respondent No 2 for removal/decadrisation of the applicant from the Executive Clerical Cadre. On the basis of this report, the applicant was reverted to District Executive Force vide letter dated January 29, 1997 as per Annexure -R/II.

(3.) On the basis of above reply it has been pleaded that the action of the Respondent State is legal and just needs to be upheld as the working of the applicant was found unsatisfactory.