Allahabad High Court
Vijay Kumar Bharati vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 April, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4143 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Bharati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead "Chairman/Secretary, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow as respondent no. 5 in the array of the parties.
Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 03.05.2016, passed by respondent no.4 awarding adverse/censure entry to petitioner and the appellate order dated 27.07.2016 passed by respondent no.3 and revisional order dated 27.01.2017 passed by respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty order is wholly non speaking. Neither the disciplinary authority has taken note of the precise objection/explanation of the petitioner nor has he given any reason to reach the conclusion of guilt of the petitioner. Unless such discussion had been made and unless such reason had been recorded in the impugned order dated 03.05.2016, no punishment could have been awarded. The appellate authority has also erred in proceeding to sustain the order on its own application of mind.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as five years have passed since the date of adverse/censure order dated 03.05.2016, under Rule 4(b)(iv) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 wherein minor punishment so awarded to the employee can be considered for promotion after 5 years from the date of adverse/censure entry so awarded. He has placed reliance upon a decision passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions, leading of which is Writ-A No.7959 of 2019 (Bhupendra Singh vs, State Of U.P. and 5 Others), wherein this Court observed as under:-
"12. The observations of this Court in the case of Head Constable Ram Babu (supra) appears to have been followed in the subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra). In the case of Anil Kumar (supra) also reference is made to circular dated 19.10.2015. This circular has been annexed alongwith counter affidavit filed in the present petition. The circular runs into 11 pages and refers to various pleas made before the Tribunal and also the orders passed by the Tribunal. Having referred to all such facts in the letter dated 19.10.2015 the ultimate prayer made is to grant permission to the department for filing writ petition before the Lucknow Bench. This order, therefore, cannot be treated to be laying down any principle or policy restricting relevance of adverse material only for a period of three years, for the purposes of considering a police personnel for promotion to the next higher post. The guiding principles which are laid down in the applicable circular remains in tune with the Government Order dated 30.6.1993, which is five years and not three years. Petitioners, therefore, would not be justified in seeking consideration of their claim for promotion relying upon the alleged circular dated 19.10.2015. It is otherwise not shown that a period of five years had expired since passing of order awarding censure entry to the petitioners on the date of consideration of their claim for promotion.
13. In view of what has been observed, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. However, this order would not preclude the petitioners' consideration for promotion in case no adverse material has come into existence upon expiry of five years since award of censure entry or imposing minor punishment."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is not pressing the relief no.'b' as sought in the petition as five years have elapsed since the impugned order dated 03.05.2016 was passed by respondent no.4 awarding adverse/censure entry and, as such, the only prayer is for the respondent authority to consider the case of petitioner for promotion, for which he is eligible in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Bhupendra Singh (supra).
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the factum that this Court in the case of Bhupendra Singh (supra) has taken a view that candidates can claim promotion relying upon the circular dated 30.6.1993 and as the period of five years have expired since passing of the order awarding censure entry to the petitioner.
In view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 18.09.2019 rendered in the case of Bhupendra Singh (supra). The respondents authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law as the order impugned dated 03.05.2016 has lost its efficacy.
Order Date :- 8.4.2022
Jitendra/-
