MOJIBUZ ZAMAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of order dated 14.03.2009 issued by Deputy Inspector General of Police (P), Ranchi and office order dated 30.03.2009 issued by Inspector General of Police, Dumka, whereby the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Steno Sub -Inspector to Steno Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police and further prayed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Steno Sub -Inspector of Police from the date of promotion given by the Board dated 01.07.2008 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Steno Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police on 30.07.1988 and in due course of time in the year 2006, the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion and his name in seniority list was was shown at serial no. 16 vide memo dated 01.03.2006. Thereafter, a consent letter for promotion was sought for from the petitioner in the year 2008 vide memo dated 15.05.2008 and the petitioner exercised his option for the same cadre. It has been submitted that a Board for promotion on Sub -Inspector of Police was held on 11.07.2008 and the petitioner was considered for promotion on the post of Steno Sub -Inspector. After promotion, the petitioner was posted in the office of Inspector General of Police, Dumka on 26.07.2008 and later he was sent on deputation to the office of Superintendent of Police, Pakur. But to the utter surprise, the Inspector General of Police, Dumka vide letter dated 30.03.2009 passed order of reversion of the petitioner purportedly in pursuance to letter dated 17.03.2009 issued by Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand. Being aggrieved, the petitioner represented to Inspector General of Police but no order has been passed on the said representation.

(3.) Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of reversion is illegal and against the provisions of law. Learned counsel further submits that before passing the impugned order neither any notice has been served upon the petitioner nor opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner thereby the cardinal principles of natural justice has been violated. Learned senior counsel further submits that the promotion given by the Board cannot be changed/altered or reversed by the D.I.G of Police (Personnel). Learned senior counsel further submits that in passing the impugned order Rule 824 of the Police Manual with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India has been violated.