Delhi High Court
G.R. Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 July, 2015
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 27.07.2015
+ W.P.(C) 5595/2014
G.R. SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr S.R. Jolly, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms Abha Malhotra and Ms Veera Angrish,
Advs along with Mr A.K. Singh, Inspector, CISF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of ACP benefits to him. He,
therefore, seeks a direction that the order dated 17.11.2012, which rejected the
representation, should be quashed and appropriate directions be issued to the
respondents to release the ACP benefits.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security
Force (CISF) on 02.09.1975. He continued to serve the Force and retired on
31.03.2013 after competing 37 years of service. He contends that having
completed 12 years of service on 02.09.1987 and 24 years service on 01.09.1999
he was entitled to the grant of ACP benefits--First Financial Upgradation with
effect from 09.08.1999 and Second Financial Upgradation with effect from
01.09.1999 in terms of the Central Government's Office Memorandum dated
09.08.1999, which conferred Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits to those
W.P.(C) 5595/2014 Page 1
who were unable to earn promotion in the normal course, according to the
Recruitment Rules. It is submitted that the Screening Committee, which
considers the suitability of candidates for ACP benefits had, in fact, recommended
the petitioner's case in its meeting on 26.05.2000, subject to the rider that in case
there were disciplinary proceedings pending against him, the ACP benefits would
not be given. Later, however, the CISF, after considering the previous records,
especially the penalty order dated 27.01.2000, felt that ACP benefits could not be
granted. The petitioner was communicated this as well as the adverse remark
recorded, against which he represented to the concerned authorities. It is
contended that the said adverse remark was expunged. Learned counsel contends
that notwithstanding these developments, the respondents have unjustly denied
ACP benefits to him. He relies upon the conditions of the ACP Scheme of
09.8.1999 to say that intention of the authorities was to ensure that those deprived
or denied regular promotion due to lack of vacancies or other such conditions had
to be given career advancement as an incentive.
3. The respondents in the counter-affidavit have denied the petitioner's claim.
It is stated that the petitioner was imposed penalty under Rule 35 of the CISF
Rules on 27.01.2000 and that even though this aspect was ignored by the
Screening Committee on 26.05.2000 when it recommended release of ACP
benefits subsequently, the CISF, on consideration of the records, decided that the
petitioner was not yet fit.
4. Resisting the claim, it is contended that one of the essential conditions for
grant of ACP is that the employee should be eligible for consideration in terms of
the existing Rules/policies. Stating that for promotion to the concerned higher
post, the individual had to possess at least 5 "Good" gradings in the preceding five
years, it is contended that the record of the petitioner did not entitle him to the
W.P.(C) 5595/2014 Page 2
benefits sought in these proceedings. The respondents submit that from the year
1996 to 2010, at no point of given time, did the petitioner possess consistent
"Good" gradings for five consecutive years. The respondents say that in the said
15 years' period, the petitioner managed to secure only about 7 "Good" gradings.
It is also stated that the petitioner was awarded several penalties in his career.
They are detailed in the form of a chart, which is extracted below:
S.No. Brief of Misconduct Punishment Final order/service order
awarded
1. For absenting from Censure S.O. Part.II No.501/1982
Parade. dated 14.12.1982
2. For absenting from duty One day pay S.O. Part.II No.88/1983
fine. dated 07.06.1983
3. For AWL (Absent Withholding of Final Order No.(513) dated
without Leave) one increment 07.04.1985.
for two years
with
cumulative
effect.
4. For using abusing Dismissal from Final Order No. (3177)
language towards Sr. serve dated 08.09.1990.
Officers.
Lager the Revisioning Authority
penalty was (IG/DS) Order No.(81)
modified to that dated 12.09.1990.
of "Reduction
of pay by two
stages for a
period of two
years with
cumulative
effect.
5. For absenting from unit Censure Final Order No.(1217)
line. dated 26.06.1991.
6. For using filthy Withholding of Final Order No. (2326)
language and one increment dated 20.09.1991
misbehave with ASI/E for one year
W.P.(C) 5595/2014 Page 3
Radhey Shyam without
cumulative
effect.
7. For absenting from duty Three days pay Final Order No. (743) dated
post. fine. 15.04.1994.
8. For absenting from unit Censure Final Order No. (220) dated
line. 21.02.1997.
9. For sending application One day pay Final Order No.(1013)
directly to higher fine. dated 11.08.1997.
authority ignoring the
proper channels.
10. For AWL (Absent Two days pay Final Order No. (189) dated
without leave) fine. 27.06.2000.
11. For absenting Censure Final Order No.(442) dated
application directly to 10.09.2008.
higher authority
ignoring the proper
channels.
12. For sleeping while on Seven days pay Final Order No. (1742)
duty fine. dated 21.12.2008.
In suo moto Gp. Comdt. CISF Gp.
review, the Ahmedabad Order No.
penalty was (735) dated 15.07.2009.
modified to that
of "withholding
one increment
for one year
without
cumulative
effect."
13. For indulging in quarrel Seven days pay Final Order No. (2747)
with colleague. fine. dated 01.11.2010
5. It is stated that the penalties imposed upon the petitioner were not trivial and
were on account of misbehaviour and dereliction of duty such as sleeping on duty,
etc. This Court has considered the submissions. The respondents do not deny that
the petitioner had completed 12 and 24 years, which entitles an employee for
W.P.(C) 5595/2014 Page 4
consideration of the ACP benefits. However, the completion of such qualifying
service itself is not the only determinative criteria. The employee has also to fulfil
other conditions, which would ordinarily entitle him to be promoted such as the
qualifications for higher post, qualifying service required by the Rules, qualifying
experience required by the Rules and the fulfilment of the essential bench mark
according to the existing policy in terms of the number of annual confidential
report gradings. Additionally, the employee has to be medically fit to discharge
the duties required of him in the higher post.
6. In the present case, as noticed earlier, though the petitioner fulfills the
eligibility and the qualifying service criteria, he did not fulfil other parameters, the
most notable one being the need to possess five "Good" ACRs grading for each of
the financial upgradations. Furthermore, the petitioner was imposed several
penalties almost from the inception of his career--which are 13 in number.
7. Having regard to these facts, this court is of the opinion that no case is made
out for granting relief claimed in these proceedings.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
V.K. SHALI
(JUDGE)
JULY 27, 2015
BG
W.P.(C) 5595/2014 Page 5
