Delhi High Court
Ex. Constable Manik Lal Singh vs The Union Of India & Anr. on 17 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 212/2013
EX. CONSTABLE MANIK LAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. H.P. Chakravorti, Advocate
versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal & Mr. Gaurav
Khanna, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 17.09.2014
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks (i) issuance of a
writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside of
the Charge Memorandums dated 22.01.2009 and 13.04.2011 and (ii)
issuance of a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for financial up-
gradation under ACP/MACP Schemes besides his promotion to the post
of Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector with all consequential
benefits of arrears of pay and allowances along with interest @ 18% per
annum.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the stand taken by
them is that the petitioner was awarded 11 punishments by various
Disciplinary Authorities for several acts of indiscipline due to which he
was found 'Not Yet Fit' for the grant of ACP/ MACP benefits from the
period 1999 to 2010 and was also found unsuitable for retention in
service beyond 30 years of service. It is also the case of the respondents
that in compliance with the direction given by the Ministry of Personnel,
Grievance and Pension, DoPT, New Delhi, vide letter Nos.35034/1/97-
Estt. (D) dated 09.08.1999 and 35034/3/2008 -Estt. (D) dated 19.05.2009,
the case for the grant of Assured Career Progression and MACP benefits
to the petitioner was considered by the Screening Committee at various
units every year and every time he was found 'Not Yet Fit' for the grant
of the said benefits due to his consistently bad record of service. It is also
the stand of the respondents that on 21.03.2011, the MACP Committee
found him fit for the grant of MACP benefit, accordingly the same was
granted to the petitioner.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The petitioner is guilty of suppressing from this Court the fact that
he was awarded 11 punishments for various acts of misbehaviour and
misconduct and that his case for the grant of Assured Career Progression
and MACP benefits was considered by the Screening Committee every
year.
5. The parameters and the time period taken into consideration for the
grant of promotion and for the grant of ACP/MACP benefits are not the
same. The petitioner has not denied the fact that he was awarded
punishments for various misconducts in different units vide orders dated
30.10.1987, 28.09.1991, 11.06.1994, 27.01.1995, 11.05.1995,
09.03.1996, 08.03.1998, 04.12.2001, 18.04.2002, 16.11.2006 and
19.04.2007 and it is only on account of these punishments that the various
screening committees even after having examined the case of the
petitioner every year found him 'not yet fit' due to his consistently bad
record of service.
6. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity or illegality in the Charge
Memorandums dated 22.01.2009 and 13.04.2011 issued by the
respondents for not granting the financial up-gradation to the petitioner
under the ACP/ MACP Schemes and also for not granting promotion to
the petitioner because of not having secured a minimum 50 marks.
There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
v
