Kerala High Court
Rajkumar Singh vs Senior Commandant on 14 July, 2025
2025:KER:51843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO.23237 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:
RAJKUMAR SINGH
(NO.904471759)
HEAD CONSTABLE/GD,
CISF UNIT,
BPCL-KR,
COCHIN
BY ADV.
SHRI.A.DINESH RAO
RESPONDENTS:
1 SENIOR COMMANDANT
CISF HEADQUARTERS,
KENDRIYA BHAVAN,
KAKKANAD,
KOCHI- 682 037
2 ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL/ESTT
13 CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-3
3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CISF HEAD QUARTERS,
13 CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-3
2025:KER:51843
2
W.P.(C) No.23237 of 2016
4 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFAIRS,
NEW DELHI
BY ADVS.
O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
SHRI.DAYASINDHU SHREEHARI N.S., SENIOR PANEL
COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:51843
3
W.P.(C) No.23237 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P2
and P3. Ext.P2 is a communication issued by the Assistant
Inspector General/Estt, CISF Head Quarters, New Delhi to the
Inspector General at Chennai. In the said letter, it was stated
that the petitioner was granted promotion as Head Constable
erroneously on the basis of an incorrect recommendation by
the DPC. Further it was directed that the promotion granted to
the petitioner shall be withdrawn and he shall be reverted to
the rank of Constable/GD rank by giving him show cause
notice in accordance with Government of India orders
contained in F.R. 31-A. Pursuant to Ext.P2, Ext.P3 show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner by the Group
Commandant, CISF, Kochi. In paragraph 2 of Ext.P3, it has
been stated as follows:
"2. Subsequently it has been observed that the
punishment of withholding of one increment for a period
of two years awarded to the said individual vide AC, CISF
Unit RAPS/HWP Kota final order No.(2670) dated
01.09.2008 was not taken into account while considering
his case for promotion from Constable (GD) to Head
Constable (GD) during the DPC-2014. Thus
2025:KER:51843
No.904471759, HC/GD Raj Kumar Singh was
erroneously promoted to the rank of Head Constable (GD)
and instructions to this effect was issued by higher
formation to revert the rank of Constable (GD) by
withdrawing his promotion."
2. On receipt of Ext.P3, petitioner approached this Court.
By interim order dated 12.07.2016, this Court granted stay of
further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a
perusal of Ext.P2 would show that the authority who issued
the said communication had already decided to revert the
petitioner and therefore issuance of Ext.P3 was only an empty
formality. He submitted that an opportunity to furnish reply to
a show cause notice and hearing before reversion was a right
recognised under the relevant rules and also in view of the
principles of natural justice. The main contention urged by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said right was
virtually denied while taking a decision to revert the petitioner
as reflected in Ext.P2 and then issuing Ext.P3 only for the
2025:KER:51843
purpose of compliance of the requirements of Rule 31A of the
Fundamental Rules. He therefore prayed that Exts.P2 and P3
may be set aside. The learned counsel also submitted that
from the date of issuance of Ext.P1 in 2014, the petitioner has
been working as a Head Constable and therefore his reversion
at this distant point of time will be highly unjust.
5. The learned Deputy Solicitor General on the other
hand contended that the promotion granted to the petitioner
was erroneous. In view of Ext.R1(c), in case the employee
had more than five minor or major punishments in the last 10
years, the DPC shall not recommend the employee for
promotion. In the case at hand, the DPC failed to take note of
a punishment imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner had
faced five punishments during the period of 10 years prior to
2014. The following are the punishments as pointed out in the
counter affidavit:
"1. Three days pay fine vide Final Order No. (715)
dated 04.10.2004
2. One day pay fine vide Final Order No. (2244) dated
on 16.06.2007
2025:KER:51843
3. One day pay fine vide Final Order No. (1237) dated
06.05.2011
4. Censure vide Final Order No. (489) dated
16.02.2008. and
5. Withholding of one increment for a period of two
years without cumulative effect vide Final Order
No. 2670 dated 01.09.2008."
6. Among them, the last punishment was not taken
note of by the DPC while recommending the petitioner for
promotion. The DSGI relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Narendra
Singh [(2008) 2 SCC 750]. The DSGI has also made
reference to Rule 31A of the Fundamental Rules. It was
submitted that in view of Rule 31A and also the law as
explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment
cited, the authorities were well within their powers to revert
the petitioner as the recommendation of the DPC was
manifestly erroneous. Therefore the DSGI justified the action
taken by the authorities. It was further submitted that the
petitioner was eligible for promotion in the year 2016 and the
said promotion could not be granted to him on account of the
pendency of this Writ Petition and the interim order passed.
2025:KER:51843
7. The respondent authorities have a case that one
among the punishments awarded to the petitioner during the
period of 10 years prior to 2014 was omitted to be taken note
of by the DPC while making the recommendation. Petitioner
has not refuted the said contention of the respondents. No
reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner denying the
said assertion made by the respondents. Therefore it cannot
be said that the respondents were not be justified in taking a
decision to issue show cause notice to the respondent.
However, there is merit in the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the contents of Ext.P2 would
give an impression that the authorities had already taken a
decision to revert the petitioner and thereafter directed to
issue a show cause notice in order to ensure compliance with
the requirements of Rule 31A and also of the principles of
natural justice. Nevertheless, it is to be noted that the
petitioner did not submit any reply to Ext.P3 and rushed to
this Court. This Court granted interim order in favour of the
petitioner and on the strength of the same the petitioner
2025:KER:51843
continued in the promoted post and the authorities did not
proceed further. In the above facts and circumstances of the
case I am of the considered view that the Writ Petition can be
disposed of by issuing the following directions:
i) The petitioner shall submit his reply to Ext.P3 show
cause notice within a period of three weeks from the
date of issuance of a copy of this judgment.
ii) The authority concerned shall consider the reply of the
petitioner, provide an opportunity of hearing to him
and take a decision untrammeled by any observations
in Ext.P2.
iii) The authority shall take a decision on merits without
any prejudices.
iv) The interim order granted by this Court on 12.07.2016
which continued to remain in force till now shall
remain in force for a further period of six weeks.
v) A fresh decision in this matter shall be taken by the
authority concerned within six weeks and be
communicated to the petitioner.
2025:KER:51843
vi) In case the petitioner fails to submit reply to the show
cause notice as directed above within three weeks, it
will be open to the authorities to proceed further
reckoning that he has forfeited the opportunity.
8. During the course of hearing it was noticed that Ext
P2 is a communication classified as "Confidential". Its copy
was not marked to the petitioner. However the document has
been produced as an exhibit by the petitioner. This aspect be
taken note of by the competent among the respondent.
Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
PV
2025:KER:51843
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23237/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE ORDER PARTI
NO.69/2014 DATED 09-05-2014 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
26-05-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 20-06-2016 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
