Dhirendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12846 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Dhirendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 21 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:209201
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - A No. - 16577 of 2025   
 
   Dhirendra Kumar    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 4 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Akhilesh K. Dwivedi, Raghvendra Tripathi, Rohit Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 34
 
   
 
 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.    

1. Instructions filed today under the signatures of UP Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow dated 6.11.2025 and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Establishment, UP, Lucknow are taken on record marked as Appendix A and B, respectively.

2. Heard Sri Rohit Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel has made a statement at the Bar that he is well-equipped with the instructions and they are self-sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition and he does not propose to file any further affidavit. The writ petition be decided on the basis of documents available on record.

4. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the present stage.

5. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as a Constable in Police on 16.12.1996 and promoted on the post of Sub-Inspector on 15.11.2012. The writ petitioner also passed the police training certificate for the post of Inspector on 22.8.2021. While the writ petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector, an FIR came to be lodged against the writ petitioner being Case Crime No. 821 of 2021, under Sections 195, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Badaut, District Bagpat on 28.7.2021. A charge sheet also came to be submitted being Case Crime No. 821 of 2021, under Sections 195, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120-B IPC on 26.8.2023. The writ petitioner, thereafter, preferred a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC No. 10301 of 2023, Dheeraj Kumar vs. State of UP, in which the writ petitioner was accorded anticipatory bail. The writ petitioner was also subjected to a censure entry, against which the writ petitioner preferred claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal, which came to be allowed on 7.3.2025. On 13.5.2025, an order came to be passed by the Superintendent of Police, Chandauli, whereby consequential orders were passed for expunging the censure entry from the service record. As per the writ petitioner, his name finds place at Serial No. 53 of the tentative seniority list. The promotion exercise stood undertaken on 29.10.2024, from the post of Sub-Inspector to the post of Inspector. However, the case of the writ petitioner was kept in sealed cover owing to the pendency of the criminal case.

6. Questioning the order dated 29.10.2024, insofar it places the writ petitioner's promotion prospects in sealed cover, while granting benefits to the juniors and similarly situated incumbent, the present writ petition has been preferred.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot for infinite time keep the promotion prospects of the writ petitioner in sealed cover. The submission is that once the writ petitioner is found suitable for Sub-Inspector, then there happens to be no logic and rationale in not considering the promotion of the writ petitioner as Inspector in that regard. He seeks to rely upon the Government Orders dated 28.5.1997, 9.1.2018 as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Janki Raman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 and judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 8151 of 2022, Neeraj Kumar Pandey vs. State of UP, decided on 26.5.2022.

8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be the case, the writ petitioner is entangled in a criminal case, though the writ petitioner has been accorded anticipatory bail, however, he could not dispute the fact that the case of the writ petitioner stands fully covered by the judgment of Neeraj Kumar Pandey (supra). He submits that the matter needs to be revisited at the end of the respondents.

9. I have heard these submissions so made across the bar and the record.

10. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner was entangled in a criminal case pursuant whereto he was accorded anticipatory bail. Thereafter a promotion exercise stood undertaken for promotion from the post of Sub Inspector to Inspector and the case of the writ petitioner was kept in sealed cover by virtue of the order dated 29.10.2024. In Neeraj Kumar Pandey (supra) the similar question came up for consideration wherein the following was observed:-

"3. Neeraj Kumar Pandey the writ petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to "open the Seal Cover Envelop and promote the petitioner on the post of Head Constable, on the date from which the juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion, in pursuance of the Government Order No.13/21/89 -Ka-1-1997, dated 28.05.1997 & Government Order No. 1/2008-13 (6)/2017/Ka-1-2018, dated 09.01.2018, which has been issued under the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Janki Raman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 with all consequential benefits". Petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents "to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Head Constable, from the date juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion, in pursuance of the Government Order No.13/21/89 -Ka-1-1997, dated 28.05.1997 & Government Order No. 1/2018-13 (6)/2018-13 (6)/2017/Ka-1-2018 dated 09/01/2018, which has been issued under the directions of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.V. Janki Raman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 with all consequential benefits."

4. Record shows that petitioner was selected for the post of constable in U.P. Police. Upon selection petitioner was appointed as Constable in U.P., Police on 21.10.2006. Services of petitioner are governed by U.P. Police Constables and Head Constables Service Rules, 2015 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2015). According to petitioner, he became eligible for promotion on the post of Head Constable after completion of seven years of service by virtue of the provisions contained in Rules 5 and 17 of the Rules of 2015. However, the Superintendent of Police (Personnel) (Karmik), U.P. Police Head Quarters, Allahabad issued the final Seniority List of Constables in U.P. Police selected upto 2019 Batch on 24.07.2019. The name of petitioner finds mention at Serial No. 22038 out of 24293. According to petitioner aforesaid final Seniority List was amended by including certain names in the Seniority List but the position of petitioner in aforementioned Seniority List remained the same.

5. Respondent-4, the Deputy Inspector General of Police/Superintendent of Police Establishment/Kormik, D.G.P. Head Quarters, U.P., Lucknow issued a select list of 16929 Constables dated 30.12.2020, who have been promoted on the post of Head Constables. Aforesaid promotion was made for the Selection Year-2017 on the basis of Seniority subject to rejection of unfit.

6. It is the case of petitioner, that juniors to petitioner, whose names have been mentioned in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, were granted promotion on the post of Head Constable whereas the name of petitioner does not find mention in the Select List, copy of which is on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

7. Subsequently, respondent-4, the Deputy Inspector General of Police/Superintendent of Police Establishment/Kormic, D.G.P. Head Quarters, U.P., Lucknow, issued an order dated 01.01.2021 whereby a list of 1495 Police Personnel was published, who were considered for promotion but their cases were placed in Sealed Cover.

8. According to petitioner, an F.I.R. dated 23.04.2006 was lodged and registered as Case Crime No. 91A of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 427 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Salon District-Rai-Bareilly. In the aforementioned case crime number, charge-sheet was submitted resulting in consequential Criminal Case No. 1084 of 2007 (State Vs. Shiv Mangal and others). Charge-sheeted accused including petitioner were acquitted of the charges alleged against them vide judgement and order dated 12.06.2009. As such on the date of consideration for promotion of petitioner, aforesaid criminal case was not pending.

9. Subsequently, another F.I.R. dated 27.04.2007 was lodged against petitioner, which was registered as Case Crime No. 471 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467 I.P.C., Police Station-Nawabad, District-Jhansi. In the aforesaid case crime number, charge-sheet dated 31.12.2007 has been submitted.

10. Feeling aggrieved by above, petitioner approached this Court by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 26229 of 2012, in which an interim order dated 17.08.2012 was passed by this Court.

11. According to the learned Senior Counsel, on account of above, the services of petitioner were dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2010 passed by respondent-6, Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi in exercise of power under Rule 8 (2) (b) of U.P., Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Petitioner challenged the order of dismissal dated 15.07.2010 before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43868 of 2010 (Neeraj Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others). Aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2010. Consequently, the petitoner was reinstated in service vide order dated 04.03.2011 passed by respondent-6, Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, According to petitioner, the said order has become final for want of further challenge.

12. On the aforesaid premise, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that once the petitioner has been allowed to continue in service, irrespective of the pendency of criminal case, the denial of promotion to petitioner on account of pendency of criminal case cannot be sustained.

13. It is next contended that the case of petitioner for promotion was considered in the year 2020 but his claim has been placed in Sealed Cover. Relying upon paragraph 19 of the judgement of this Court in Kumari Maya (Mahalla Constable) Vs. State of U.P. and others (2011) 5 ADJ 818, he submits that the purpose of Sealed Cover procedure is not for keeping the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee in abeyance indefinitely. For ready reference paragraph 19 of aforesaid judgement is reproduced herein-under:-

"19. The concept of ''sealed cover'' is normally applicable when conduct of an employee is under investigation, as to whether such person is guilty of misconduct warranting any kind of punishment which may dis-entitle him any promotion on higher post and during such period of suspended animation the authority keeps the matter of promotion in sealed cover so as to take a decision in this regard later on in accordance with the result of inquiry held against such person. But in cases where the incumbent has been considered for promotion in accordance with rules according to zone of consideration and field of eligibility and has been found ultimately selected therein, the question of keeping his result in a sealed cover is nothing but a flimsy pretext inasmuch as result of selection is already known to every body. Mere pendency of the matter of cadre allocation or if for any reason the incumbent is not relieved for joining in Uttranchal State, it ought not to have caused any hindrance in the matter of carrier advancement of such persons since for such pendency the incumbent concerned cannot be said to be at fault."

14. It is thus urged that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be taken as a ground to deny promotion to the petitioner particularly when on the same ground the dismissal order passed against petitioner was set-aside by this Court.

15. It is also contended by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that on account of aforesaid, petitioner has been denied the benefit of promotion for approximately two years. He has then invited attention of Court to the Government Order No.13/21/89 -Ka-1-1997, dated 28.05.1997 & Government Order No. 1/2008-13 (6)/2017/Ka-1-2018, dated 09.01.2018 have been issued by State Government in this regard. The answering respondents have failed to consider the claim of petitioner for promotion from the date Juniors to the petitioner have been promoted. No ground exists to deny promotion to petitioner with retrospective effect.

16. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents has opposed the present writ petition. He submits that case of petitoner for promotion on the post of Head Constable has been considered but has been placed in Sealed Cover on account of pendency of criminal case. The trial of criminal case has not yet concluded on account of interim order granted by this Court on the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner himself. Petitioner is a member of disciplined force. Offence complained of against petitioner is that of cheating and forgery. As such, no illegality has been committed in not opening the Sealed Cover regarding claim of petitioner.

17. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned standing counsel for State-respondents and upon perusal of record, the Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that irrespective of pendency of criminal case, petitioner has been allowed to continue. Therefore, mere pendency of a criminal case, prima-facie, cannot be taken as a ground to deny promotion of petitioner. The Competent Authority cannot withhold the claim of petitioner indefinitely on the ground of having adopted Sealed Cover Procedure, due to the pendency of criminal case.

18. In view of the discussion made above this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider the claim of petitioner for opening the Sealed Cover within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in the light of observations made herein-above."

11. Since the criminal case is though pending against the writ petitioner but he has been found to be suitable for being accorded joining and posting as Sub Inspector thus, this Court does not find any logic in denying the writ petitioner, promotion to the post of Inspector. The case of the writ petitioner needs to be revisited by the authority. The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation along with a self attested copy of the writ petition and a certified copy of this order by 5th December, 2025 before the fifth respondent, Senior Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi, who shall remit the papers to the authority, who is empowered to consider the case of the writ petitioner and the matter be revisited and order be passed within a period of two months.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

November 21, 2025

Gurpreet Singh