PRANTOSH KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pleadings being complete, with consent of the parties, the writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police. According to him, promotion to Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police was due to him w.e.f. 1.11.2000. No Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted and petitioner was not considered for promotion. This position went on for several years. In the meantime, petitioner had supervised a criminal case which went into much controversy. Ultimately in 2007, departmental proceedings were initiated as against the petitioner by issuance of charge sheet on 15.6.2007. In 2008, a Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted to consider promotion to various Deputy Superintendent of Police which included juniors of petitioner. Apparently on the plea that departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner, he was not considered for promotion whereas, in 2008, promotions were granted to his juniors w.e.f. 1.11.2000. In the departmental proceedings petitioner was held guilty by order dated 2.3.2009. He was given censure and withholding one increment with noncumulative effect. Both are minor punishments, the effect of which last only one year. Upon expiry of the said period of one year, petitioner was then considered for promotion and granted promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police but with effect from 3.3.2010. Petitioner's grievance starts here. He submits that as his juniors have been promoted w.e.f. 1.11.2000, it can safely be urged and it cannot be disputed that he became entitled to be considered for promotion from the same day. In other words, he was entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 2000 itself, but the department slept over the matter and delayed the matter for consideration by almost eight years. There was nothing wrong with the petitioner in the year 2000 or soon thereafter. Yet petitioner was not considered for promotion because Departmental Promotion Committee could not be constituted. Now petitioner is being told that promotion w.e.f. 1.11.2000 cannot be granted to him because in the year 2009, he has been found guilty in departmental proceedings. The question is whether on the date when petitioner became entitled to be considered for promotion w.e.f. 1.11.2000, was he suffering from any disability? The obvious answer is no. Thus, he ought to have been considered for promotion w.e.f. 1.11.2000 and granted promotion as he did not suffer from any disability then. State submits that now that petitioner suffered from disability, he cannot be granted promotion for a period earlier than the disability period. I am unable to appreciate or accede to the said submission. All I can say is in terms of the judgment of Chief Justice Chagla in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Limited -Versus- Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, 1954 AIR(Bom) 232 :

(3.) Equally relevant would be the case of the Apex Court again In the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors., 1992 Supp1 SCC 21.