RAMANUGRAHSINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner'for quashing the order dated 18-8-1986 passed by the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police avarding major punishment to the petitioner by withholding increment for three years (Annexure-7) at also the appellate order dated 28-9-1988 (Annexure-5) passed by the Inspector General of Police. B. M. P. Bihar (respondent No. 5), by which he has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner also claims that he has been illegally denied his right of promotion.

(2.) The petitioner had entered in Bibar Police service on 11-3-1959. He has been working on the post of Inspector of Police (Armed) since 21-7-1976 in Bihar Millitary Police (B. M. P.). He was confirmed on this post in 1977 In 1983 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, inter alia, on the charge that instead of purchasing tyres and tubes as per the approved tender, Inchek tyres and tubes were purchased and the relevant certificates in this regard were counter signed without proper varification. After due enquiry, the Conducting Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge. In view of the enquiry report and the materials on record, the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police (B. M, P.) also held the petitioner to be guilty of the charge and awarded him the punishment of withholding the increment for three years This order is dated 18-8-1986 and has bean filed as Annexure-7 to the writ application Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police (B. M. P.) respondent No. 5. but the same has been rejected by the Order as contained in Memo No. 2367 dated 28-9-1988 (Annexure-11). The petitioner has also been denied the promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The further case of the petitioner is that keeping in view his seniority he became entitled the promotion in the year 1980 itself but the promotion Committee took up the matter of promotion of Inspectors to the post of D. S. P, only in 1986. The Promotion Committee recommended the promotion of Inspectors junior to the petitioner, namely, Jamshed Alam, S. K. Sidiki and Permanand Pandey but did not consider the case of the petitioner on the ground that he has been awarded major punishment in the present departmental proceeding on 18-8-1986. According to the petitioner the said Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, deeping in view the police Order Amendment Slip 1/86.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the Order dated 18-8-1986 (Annexurc-7) passed by the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police as also the appellate Order (Annexure-11) passed by the Inspector General of Police (B. M. P.) on various grounds. One of the grounds for challenging the appellate Order is that under Rule 851, the statutory appeal against an Order of major punishment, passed by the Deputy Inspector Central lies to the Inspector General and therefore, the respondent Inspector General (B. M, P.) had no jurisdiction to consider and dismiss the appeal of the petitioner.