S SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was recruited directly as a Dy. SP. in the year 1987 and has since then been continuously serving in the Police Department on various appointments and in various capacities. At the time petition was originally file, the petitioner was holding the rank of Dy. SP in selection grade, but it was pointed out during the course of arguments that he has since been promoted to the rank of senior Suptd. of police and has in fact been inducted in the Indian Police Service Quite entirely so, because of the lapse of almost 12 years between the date of filing of this petition and its disposal.

(2.) IT appears that some time prior to 20 April F991, on some grounds, the petitioner had been placed under suspension and departmental disciplinary proceedings had been initiated on some charges. Neither these grounds and charges for which the petitioner was suspended or on which the disciplinary proceeding were initiated against him have been mentioned by the parties nor are these relevant for this case. What is relevant, however, is that the petitioner was re -instated in service vide order passed on June 21, 1979 and vide Govt. Order No 1 Home 655 (Police) on 1979 dated 13th Dec. 1979, the petitioner was finally exonerated of the charges levelled against him and the period of suspension was treated as duty. In this order, while exonerating the petitioner, it has clearly been mentioned that the Inquiry Officer who was appointed under Rule 33 (4) of the J&S Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 to look into the charges levelled against the petitioner, had submitted a report to the Govt. to the effect that none of the Charge levelled against him were proved and had also recommended that the proceedings against the petitioner be dropped. It was after acceptance of this report of the Inquiry Officer that the aforesaid order dated 13th Dec. 1979 was passed, Between the time the petitioner had been placed under suspension, i, e, prior to 20th April 1979, on the date (21.6.79) when he was re -instated, Govt. order No, Home -177 (Police) of 1979 dated 20 -4 -79 came to be issued where by sanction was accorded to the promotion of a large number of Dy. Superintendent of police to the selection grade (then at Rs. 700 -1160) whereas respondents No; 3 to 15 were included in this order as the beneficiaries of this promotion to the selection grate, the petitioners name was absent from this order. It is admitted case of the parties that whereas these respondents were promoted to the selection grade of Dy. SPs vide the aforesaid order, the petitioner was not promoted to this grade. This is the basic grievance of the petitioner.

(3.) HIS case is that respondents No; 3 to 15 were all juniors to the petitioner and despite he being senior to them was ignored for the promotion to the selection grade, was not even considered for such promotion and was superseded without any valid, cogen or legitimate reasons. It is pertinet to note that the petitioner also came to be promoted to the selection grade, but almost one year and a few months later, vide govt. Order No; 392 -Home (Police) of 1980 dated 17 -7 -80. The petitioners grievance, actually and in substance, therefore, when he filed this petition was and continues to be that, his promotion to selection grade, even though ordered on 17 -7 -80 should not ¦sc ¦ prospectively, but should be made effective retrospective from the date when his juniors, i.e. respondents No. 3 to 15 were promoted to this grade vide the order dated 20th April 1979. The petitioner is basing this claim on the premises that the order dated 20th April 1979 had come to be passed at a point of time when he was under suspension and was facing disciplinary proceedings and perhaps because of this reason, he was not even considered for promotion and that when he was re -instated and exonerated of all the charges, after such re -instatement and exoneration, he come to be considered and therefore, the order dated 17 -7 -80 came to be passed. The petitioners contention is that is was not his fault if he was wrongly suspended or disciplinary proceedings illegally were initiated against him and because of these illegalities, he could not have been victimized or discriminated, against, In sum and substance, I that the petitioner wants in this petition is that his promotion to selection grade of Dy. S P. should reckon from 20th April 1979 and he being senior to respondents No; 3 to 15 should automatically figure above them this promotion order, and therefore, be granted all consequential benefits till date, Govt. Order No; Home -864 (Police) of 1981 dated 19th Dec. 1981 whereby respondents No. 7 and 11 had been promoted as Superintendents of Police was passed during the pendency of original writ petition and because the petitioner wanted to challenge the Govt. Order also, he sought and was granted permission to file amended writ petition. In the amended writ petition accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the legality of this govt. order as well. Because of pendency of this petition for almost 12 years now, even this order has paled into insignificance because of the intervening and supervening developments during there past twelve years when many more orders have come to be passed and the petitioner as well as respondents have been promoted from time to time on higher posts. If the grievances of the petitioner are found to be legitimate and genuine and if order dated 20 April 1979 is held to be unconstitutional and illegal, the petitioner will undoubtedly is held entitled to all consequential benefits, right from 20 April 1979 uptill date, notwithstanding in the issuance of orders in favour of respondents No. 3 to 15 during the pendency of this petition in the court.