MAHAVIR KHARWAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 8941 of 2013

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effects, which is said to amount to three black marks vide punishment order dated 23.2.2011 contained in Memo No. 223, Annexure-5 issued by the D.I.G. of Police, Bokaro. The said punishment order relates to a departmental proceeding No. 53 of 2008 initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that the respondents apparently have not considered his case for promotion on account of punishment order which appeared to have been applied prospectively to the petitioner. It is further submitted that recommendations have been made for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Dy.S.P. vide Memo No. 2116 dated 12.12.2012, Annexure-4, by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka. However, the petitioner contends that he being in the rank of Inspector of Police, the punishment would have to be reckoned to operate from the date of occurrence/charge-sheet i.e. 29.9.2008 in view of the clarification issued by the office of Director General of Police, Jharkhand as contained in Memo No. 1989 dated 22.8.2013. It is submitted that the office of Director General of Police, Jharkhand has clarified the import of the circular dated 18.2.2012 in memo No. 1698 issued by the DOPT, Government of Jharkhand. It is submitted that a similar issue was considered by this Court and taking into account the Memo dated 22.8.2013 in the case of the said petitioner, who was also working as a Inspector of Police, the respondents have been directed to reconsider the matter. The said judgment has been rendered in the case of Naresh Kumar Sahay vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2013 4 JLJR 514 in W.P. (S) No. 2831 of 2013 . It is submitted that a similar view has been taken by the learned learned Division Bench of this Court in respect of memo dated 22.8.2013 in the case of Sada Shiv Jha vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2014 1 JLJR 451. Therefore, the respondents should be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State fairly submits that the facts of the petitioner's case appear to be covered by the principle laid down in the judgments rendered in the case of Naresh Kumar Sahay by the learned Single Judge and in the case of Sada Shiv Jha by the learned Division Bench of this Court.