Dan Singh vs Uoi & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 3621 Del

9
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       +       W.P.(C)No.5478/2008

                                     Date of Decision : 5th August, 2010
%

      DAN SINGH                                       ..... Petitioner
                           Through : Mr. H.S. Dahiya, Adv.

                      versus

      UOI & ORS                                   ..... Respondents
                           Through : Mr. Anil Gautam, Adv.
                                     for R-1.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                   YES
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  YES

3.      Whether the judgment should be                          YES
        reported in the Digest?


GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. By way of this writ petition, a challenge is raised to the

order dated 24th February, 2007 whereby the respondents have

reverted the petitioner from the post of Head Constable to

Constable. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are

in a narrow compass. The petitioner was recruited into service

with the Central Industrial Security Force („CISF‟ hereafter). On

4th September, 1996, the respondents issued a letter bearing

No.E-31014/9/96/Estt.-1/426 promoting him to the post of

Lance Naik. It appears that the next post of Naik was

rationalized as Head Constable and the petitioner was

appointed to this post on 30th September, 1996 subject to his

qualifying the promotion course of Naik/Head Constable within

two years therefrom, that is up to 30th September, 1998.

2. The petitioner has contended that after he had

undertaken the said course, he was told by the documents

section of the CISF Unit Red Fort, Delhi-110 006 where he was

posted that he had qualified in the Promotion Cadre Course.

3. It is undisputed that the petitioner continued to

satisfactorily serve the respondents on his duties and has not

been subjected to any disciplinary proceedings or penalties of

any kind during the tenure of his service.

4. In the meantime, the petitioner undertook the course for

the next promotion held between 1st October, 2004 to 11th

December, 2004 at CISF, RTC-II, Deoli for promotion from the

post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector. The

prescribed part-II service order No.138/2004 announcing the

result of the petitioner was issued on 31st December, 2004 by

the Commandant, Principal, CISF, RTC-II, Deoli (Rajasthan)

declaring that he was successful in the same. It may be noted

that the petitioner had made a representation and by a letter

bearing No. E37018/RTC-2/D/TRG/2006-1078 dated 3rd October,

2006 of the Additional Deputy Inspector General/Principal, CISF

RTC-II, Deoli, Rajasthan, it was informed that the petitioner had

been declared qualified in the Promotion Course from Head

Constable/GD to Assistant Sub-Inspector/Executive in the firing

test vide service order Part-2 No.Nil/2005 dated 6th March,

2006 of the CISF Unit, Mathura. Therefore, the petitioner had

been declared qualified in the course.

5. It has been contended that on 19th February, 2007, the

petitioner was given a show cause notice by his Commandant

informing him that his service records did not contain any entry

to his having qualified for Promotion Cadre Course for his

promotion from the post of Constable/Lance Naik to Head

Constable/GD. The petitioner had replied that he had qualified

the course and for this reason, he had been so appointed. A

request of the petitioner for personal hearing in the matter was

also not granted.

6. Without considering the aforenoticed contentions of the

petitioner, the respondents passed an order dated 24th

February, 2007 directing reversion of the petitioner to the post

of Constable for the reason that he had failed to qualify the

Promotion Cadre Course for the appointment to the post of

Naik/Head Constable within two years of his appointment which

ended on 30th September, 1998. The petitioner has assailed

the action of the respondents and the impugned order as being

based on an incorrect factual premise. It has also been

submitted that the impugned order has been passed without

consideration of the relevant material and that valuable rights

of the petitioner were impacted thereby. It is submitted that

the petitioner was validly appointed, has satisfactorily served

the respondents and that he has also successfully qualified the

promotion examination for the next higher post from Head

constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector.

7. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit reiterating

their stand that the service record does not contain any entry

of the petitioner having successfully cleared the Promotion

Cadre Course at the time of his promotion to the post of

Naik/Head Constable. It is contended by learned counsel for

the respondents that the petitioner was sent four times for

passing such examination and that he failed to do so. We find

that such contention in the counter affidavit is however not

borne out from the other communications addressed by the

petitioner to the respondents. No such fact is stated in the

show cause notice dated 19th February, 2007.

8. We find that the respondents have made no objection at

all to the promotion of the petitioner while he served in the

post of Naik/Head Constable for the period of eleven years.

The petitioner is stated to have been transferred to several

units and his record must have been scrutinized on each

occasion. It is noteworthy that no objections at all to the

discharge of all duties connected with the post of Head

Constable have been ever pointed out. The respondents have

taken the shelter of detection of an "error" in his promotion.

We find no material at all to arrive at a conclusion that there

was any error in the promotion of the petitioner. The

respondents have also completely ignored the material fact

that the petitioner has successfully undertaken the promotion

cadre examination or appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-

Inspector. In this background, the action fo the respondents in

reverting the petitioner to the post of Constable by the

impugned order dated 24th February, 2007 is clearly illegal and

arbitrary and cannot be sustained.

9. In view of the above, we direct that the order dated 24th

February, 2007 shall hereby stand set aside and quashed. It is

further directed that the respondents shall take the requisite

steps with regard to all consequential proceedings and the

appropriate orders in this behalf shall be passed within a period

of eight weeks from today.

10. This writ petition is allowed in view of the above terms.

11. This writ petition is replete with abbreviations which is

impermissible under the Delhi High Court Rules. Use of

abbreviations in pleadings makes comprehension of the matter

difficult. The Registry shall ensure that pleadings with

abbreviation are not accepted in future.

12. Dasti.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J AUGUST 05, 2010 mk