Jharkhand High Court
Ramanuj Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHAKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2387 of 2020
Ramanuj Kumar Verma. ... ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jharkhand,
Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Police Head
Quarter, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, SanthalPargana Range,
P.O. Dumka, P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj, P.O. Sahibganj, P.S.
Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj. ... ... ...Respondents
-------------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner :Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents :Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, A.C. to A.G.
-------------
08/ 13.04.2021 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the
respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police from the date
his juniors have been considered and granted promotion.
Further prayer has been made for quashing the part of minutes dated 27.05.2020
and 28.05.2020 as contained in Annexure-8.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police after following due
recruitment process and he joined the said post on 05.09.1994. After joining the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police, the petitioner served the department at several places and performed his
duty to the best of his abilities and always made himself available in the service of Department
as and when required by the respondent-authorities. After bifurcation of the State, the services
of the petitioner was finally allocated to the State of Jharkhand and since then he has been
serving the state of Jharkhand as Sub-Inspector of Police.
3. It is specific case of the petitioner that vide District Order No.347 dated
15.02.2017, the petitioner was transferred to Mirza Chouki Police Station in the district of
Sahibganj and posted there as Officer-In-charge where he gave his joining on the same date.
Soon thereafter, a memo of charge was issued to the petitioner under Rule 828 (C) of the
Police Manual Rules vide memo No. 2288 dated 22.08.2017. After receiving the memo of
charge being Enquiry No. 27 of 2017, the petitioner replied the same, but reply was not found
satisfactory by the respondents and a proceeding was initiated by serving the charge-sheet to
the petitioner where the petitioner could not succeed and punishment of stoppage of six
months increment equivalent to one black mark was inflicted against the petitioner under
Rule 828 (C) of the Police Manual. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner
preferred an appeal but the same was also rejected. It is specific case of the petitioner that
though the cases of similarly situated persons were considered by the D.G. Board for granting
promotion to the post of Inspector of Police but case of the petitioner was rejected on the
ground of currency of the major punishment on the date of consideration of his case for
promotion. It is further case of the petitioner that acting upon the representation of the
petitioner and treating the date of occurrence to be 15.02.2017, the Superintendent of Police
had recommended the case of petitioner for promotion but the same was not considered and
the case of petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, though juniors
to him have already been granted promotion. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
knocked the door of this Court.
4. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
vociferously argues that petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police
as on the date of consideration of the case of the similarly situated persons, the effect of
punishment inflicted against the petitioner had come to an end. Meaning thereby that on the
date when D.G. Board was held on 27.05.2020, there was no punishment against the
petitioner and the effect was over, treating the date of occurrence to be 28.02.2017. Justifying
the date of occurrence as 28.02.2017 learned Counsel submits that, this was the date on which
incidence took place and the petitioner disobeyed the orders of the superiors.
5. To buttress his argument, learned Counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment
of Hon'ble Patna High Court, reported in "Ram Anugrah Singh vrs. State of Bihar &Ors.",
reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 502 and further on the reported judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in case of "Sada Shiv Jhavrs. State of Jharkhand &Ors.", 2014 (1) JLJR 451.
6. Learned Counsel further submits that this Court held that three years as
stipulated under Rule 726 (iii) of the Jharkhand Police Manual should be calculated from the
date of occurrence on which the wrong was done and not from the date on which punishment
was awarded and as such keeping in view ratio laid down in case of "Sada Shiv Jha vrs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors." decided on 12.12.2013 a direction be given to the respondents
to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Police Inspector.
7. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed.
8. Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, A.C. to A.G. vehemently opposing the contention of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no wrong has been committed by the
respondent-State and there is no illegality or any infirmity in the order rejecting the case of
the petitioner for promotion.
9. Learned Counsel further argues that since the petitioner was inflicted with major
punishment, he was not entitled for promotion. Admittedly, in view of ratio laid down in case
of "Sada Shiv Jha (supra), three years from the date of occurrence and not date of award
was to be taken into consideration and as the occurrence of incidence took place on
17.08.2017, the petitioner was not eligible on appointed date and hence his name was rightly
not considered for promotion.
10. Referring to Annexure-B page 37 of the counter-affidavit, learned Counsel
submits that altogether 7 memos were issued to the petitioner but the petitioner chose not to
reply to any of the memos and thus lastly proceeding was initiated on 07.07.2017. Memo of
charge was issued on 22.08.2017.
11. Learned State Counsel further argues that the date of occurrence as per guilt was
rightly treated as 17.08.2017 because on this date recommendation for initiation of
departmental proceeding was made by the respondent-authorities which cannot be altered as
per the sweet-will of the petitioner.
12. Referring to paragraph No.13 of the counter-affidavit, it has been further argued
by Mr. Gaurav Abhishek that another departmental proceeding No. 18 of 2020 is still
pending; therefore, his case cannot be reconsidered for granting promotion.
13. Be that as it may, having gone through the submission of the parties across the
bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration.
Admittedly, the petitioner was inflicted with major punishment and any police personnel
inflicted with major punishment is not entitled for consideration of his case for promotion in
view of Rule 726 (iii) of the Jharkhand Police Manual. The law is well settled. The issue has
been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in case of "Sada Shiv Jha" (supra)
wherein it is held that cut-off date for consideration of case of a Police Officer below the rank
of Dy. Superintendent of Police for promotion shall be calculated from the date of occurrence
on which the wrong was done and not from the date on which punishment was awarded.
14. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for respondents regarding
pendency of a subsequent departmental bearing No. 18 of 2020 is concerned, this Court is of
the view that same is not applicable in the instant case as the similar issue has already been
set at rest by this Court in case of "Sambhu Prasad Jamadar vrs. State of Jharkhand &
Ors.", reported in 2011 (4) JCR 301.
15. This Court is in full agreement with the contention of the learned Counsel for
the petitioner and considering the same, the part of minutes dated 27.05.2020 and 28.05.2020
as contained in Annexure-8 so far it relates to petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside.
16. The respondent-Director General of Police is directed to constitute a Board and
reconsider the case of the petitioner for granting promotion to the post of Inspector of Police
treating the date of occurrence to be 28.02.2017 and not 17.08.2017.
17. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. It is made clear that if the petitioner satisfies other eligibility criteria for grant of
promotion, order to that effect should be issued and petitioner be granted promotion with all
consequential benefits from the date juniors to him have been granted promotion.
19. The writ petition stands allowed.
[Dr.S.N.Pathak,J.]
P.K.S.
