Kerala High Court
Rajkumar Singh vs Senior Commandant on 14 July, 2025
2025:KER:51843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO.23237 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:
RAJKUMAR SINGH
(NO.904471759)
HEAD CONSTABLE/GD,
CISF UNIT,
BPCL-KR,
COCHIN
BY ADV.
SHRI.A.DINESH RAO
RESPONDENTS:
1 SENIOR COMMANDANT
CISF HEADQUARTERS,
KENDRIYA BHAVAN,
KAKKANAD,
KOCHI- 682 037
2 ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL/ESTT
13 CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-3
3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CISF HEAD QUARTERS,
13 CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-3
2025:KER:51843
2
W.P.(C) No.23237 of 2016
4 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFAIRS,
NEW DELHI
BY ADVS.
O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
SHRI.DAYASINDHU SHREEHARI N.S., SENIOR PANEL
COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:51843
3
W.P.(C) No.23237 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3. Ext.P2 is a communication issued by the Assistant Inspector General/Estt, CISF Head Quarters, New Delhi to the Inspector General at Chennai. In the said letter, it was stated that the petitioner was granted promotion as Head Constable erroneously on the basis of an incorrect recommendation by the DPC. Further it was directed that the promotion granted to the petitioner shall be withdrawn and he shall be reverted to the rank of Constable/GD rank by giving him show cause notice in accordance with Government of India orders contained in F.R. 31-A. Pursuant to Ext.P2, Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Group Commandant, CISF, Kochi. In paragraph 2 of Ext.P3, it has been stated as follows:
"2. Subsequently it has been observed that the punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of two years awarded to the said individual vide AC, CISF Unit RAPS/HWP Kota final order No.(2670) dated 01.09.2008 was not taken into account while considering his case for promotion from Constable (GD) to Head Constable (GD) during the DPC-2014. Thus 2025:KER:51843 4 W.P.(C) No.23237 of 2016 No.904471759, HC/GD Raj Kumar Singh was erroneously promoted to the rank of Head Constable (GD) and instructions to this effect was issued by higher formation to revert the rank of Constable (GD) by withdrawing his promotion."
2. On receipt of Ext.P3, petitioner approached this Court. By interim order dated 12.07.2016, this Court granted stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of Ext.P2 would show that the authority who issued the said communication had already decided to revert the petitioner and therefore issuance of Ext.P3 was only an empty formality. He submitted that an opportunity to furnish reply to a show cause notice and hearing before reversion was a right recognised under the relevant rules and also in view of the principles of natural justice. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said right was virtually denied while taking a decision to revert the petitioner as reflected in Ext.P2 and then issuing Ext.P3 only for the 2025:KER:51843 5 W.P.(C) No.23237 of 2016 purpose of compliance of the requirements of Rule 31A of the Fundamental Rules. He therefore prayed that Exts.P2 and P3 may be set aside. The learned counsel also submitted that from the date of issuance of Ext.P1 in 2014, the petitioner has been working as a Head Constable and therefore his reversion at this distant point of time will be highly unjust.
5. The learned Deputy Solicitor General on the other hand contended that the promotion granted to the petitioner was erroneous. In view of Ext.R1(c), in case the employee had more than five minor or major punishments in the last 10 years, the DPC shall not recommend the employee for promotion. In the case at hand, the DPC failed to take note of a punishment imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner had faced five punishments during the period of 10 years prior to 2014. The following are the punishments as pointed out in the counter affidavit:
"1. Three days pay fine vide Final Order No. (715) dated 04.10.2004
2. One day pay fine vide Final Order No. (2244) dated on 16.06.2007 2025:KER:51843 6 W.P.(C) No.23237 of 2016
3. One day pay fine vide Final Order No. (1237) dated
06.05.2011
4. Censure vide Final Order No. (489) dated 16.02.2008. and
5. Withholding of one increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect vide Final Order No. 2670 dated 01.09.2008."
6. Among them, the last punishment was not taken note of by the DPC while recommending the petitioner for promotion. The DSGI relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Narendra Singh [(2008) 2 SCC 750]. The DSGI has also made reference to Rule 31A of the Fundamental Rules. It was submitted that in view of Rule 31A and also the law as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited, the authorities were well within their powers to revert the petitioner as the recommendation of the DPC was manifestly erroneous. Therefore the DSGI justified the action taken by the authorities. It was further submitted that the petitioner was eligible for promotion in the year 2016 and the said promotion could not be granted to him on account of the pendency of this Writ Petition and the interim order passed.
2025:KER:51843 7 W.P.(C) No.23237 of 2016
7. The respondent authorities have a case that one among the punishments awarded to the petitioner during the period of 10 years prior to 2014 was omitted to be taken note of by the DPC while making the recommendation. Petitioner has not refuted the said contention of the respondents. No reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner denying the said assertion made by the respondents. Therefore it cannot be said that the respondents were not be justified in taking a decision to issue show cause notice to the respondent. However, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contents of Ext.P2 would give an impression that the authorities had already taken a decision to revert the petitioner and thereafter directed to issue a show cause notice in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of Rule 31A and also of the principles of natural justice. Nevertheless, it is to be noted that the petitioner did not submit any reply to Ext.P3 and rushed to this Court. This Court granted interim order in favour of the petitioner and on the strength of the same the petitioner 2025:KER:51843 8 W.P.(C) No.23237 of 2016 continued in the promoted post and the authorities did not proceed further. In the above facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:
i) The petitioner shall submit his reply to Ext.P3 show cause notice within a period of three weeks from the date of issuance of a copy of this judgment.
ii) The authority concerned shall consider the reply of the petitioner, provide an opportunity of hearing to him and take a decision untrammeled by any observations in Ext.P2.
iii) The authority shall take a decision on merits without any prejudices.
iv) The interim order granted by this Court on 12.07.2016 which continued to remain in force till now shall remain in force for a further period of six weeks.
v) A fresh decision in this matter shall be taken by the authority concerned within six weeks and be communicated to the petitioner.
2025:KER:51843 9 W.P.(C) No.23237 of 2016
vi) In case the petitioner fails to submit reply to the show cause notice as directed above within three weeks, it will be open to the authorities to proceed further reckoning that he has forfeited the opportunity.
8. During the course of hearing it was noticed that Ext P2 is a communication classified as "Confidential". Its copy was not marked to the petitioner. However the document has been produced as an exhibit by the petitioner. This aspect be taken note of by the competent among the respondent.
Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE PV 2025:KER:51843 10 W.P.(C) No.23237 of 2016 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23237/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE ORDER PARTI NO.69/2014 DATED 09-05-2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26-05-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20-06-2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT