Majeed Khan vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6161 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26464]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11359/2020

Majeed Khan S/o Shri Safi Mohammad, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Gandhi Badi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Range Bikaner (Rajasthan).

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate
                                assisted by Mr. Ankiet Tater
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa



                       JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order
22/08/2023

1. The writ petition at hands impugnes the order dated

25.04.2019 whereby the penalty of censure has been imposed

upon the petitioner.

2. On Court's query as to why the matter requires Court's

interference, Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel submitted that

orders of censure normally do not have any serious consequence

or bearing on an employee's service career but in petitioner's case

the same has resulted in deferment of promotion for on year,

hence, this Court indulgence is necessary in the interest of justice.

[2023:RJ-JD:26464] (2 of 5) [CW-11359/2020]

3. An application has later been filed by the petitioner seeking

direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to

the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police for the year 2021-22.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner ought to have

been promoted to the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police for the

year 2021-22, whereas his case for promotion was not considered

by the respondents and the same came to be considered and

granted against of the year 2022-23.

5. Learned Senior Counsel argued that in the case of Dr.

Ashok Singhvi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.10978/2010, decided on 04.01.2013 this Court has

held that the punishment of censure cannot result in denial of the

promotion to an employee and the circular dated 26.07.2006

issued by the Department of Personnel cannot debar an otherwise

eligible person from being considered for promotion.

6. While informing that the Division Bench of this Court has

affirmed the said judgment passed in the case of Dr. Ashok

Singhvi (supra), learned Senior Counsel argued that the

respondents' action of not considering the petitioner's promotion

for against the vacancies of the year 2021-22 is illegal.

7. Mr. Anil Bissa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent-State firstly, argued that the grievance of deferment of

promotion as has been raised by the petitioner by way of the

subsequent application cannot be examined by the Court as it

would amount to enlarging the scope of the writ petition that was

filed essentially against the order of censure.

8. Learned counsel secondly argued that the denial of

promotion to the petitioner for one year does not call for any

[2023:RJ-JD:26464] (3 of 5) [CW-11359/2020]

interference, inasmuch as the provisions of the circular dated

26.07.2006/04.06.2008 have not been challenged by the

petitioner in the present writ petition.

9. He submitted that in light of circular dated 04.06.2008

issued by the Department of Personnel, the respondents are

justified in not promoting the petitioner for one year as a

consequence of penalty of censure.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

11. This Court is of the view that the impugned order dated

25.04.2019 inflicting minor penalty of censure does not call for

any interference, as it involves determination of factual issues,

which cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. However, its consequence being deferment of petitioner's

promotion for one year, need to be scrutinized judicially. The

deferment of promotion is a direct consequence of the impugned

order dated 25.04.2019, hence, while not interfering with the

order of punishment of censure dated 25.04.2019 on merits, this

Court is inclined to entertain and consider petitioner's grievance so

far as deferment of his promotion for a year is concerned.

13. In the case of Dr. Ashok Singhvi (supra) which has been

affirmed by the Division Bench vide its order dated 06.08.2013,

the Court has held that the circular dated 26.07.2006 issued by

the Department of Personnel, taking away an employee's right of

promotion for one year, is illegal, when the criterion for promotion

is seniority-cum-merit.

[2023:RJ-JD:26464] (4 of 5) [CW-11359/2020]

14. True it is, that while dealing with the case of Dr. Ashok

Singhvi (supra) this Court was considering the circular dated

26.07.2006, whereas in the present case the respondents have

denied the petitioner's right for being considered for the promotion

for a year in teeth of the circular dated 04.06.2008.

15. On reading of the circulars dated 26.07.2006 and

04.06.2008 in juxtaposition, this Court finds that except for the

date of issuance and other minor changes the essence of the

circulars is identical, more particularly, para No.16.3 of circular

dated 04.06.2008, which provides for consequence of penalty of

censure.

16. The circular dated 04.06.2008, relied upon by the

respondent-State also needs to be dealt with and construed in

light of the analogy and reasoning given in the case of Dr. Ashok

Singhvi (supra).

17. On perusal of the circular dated 04.06.2008, relied upon by

the respondent-State, this Court finds that the same is in the

teeth of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Dr.

Ashok Singhvi (supra).The State's stand therefore, cannot be

countenanced.

18. Admittedly, the petitioner has subsequently been promoted

in the year 2022-23. Hence, so far as the petitioner's suitability of

promotion is concerned, it is not in dispute.

19. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for

promotion from the year 2021-22 on the post of Dy.

Superintendent of Police. In case, the law requires a reiview DPC

to be convened, the same be convened within eight weeks from

today.

[2023:RJ-JD:26464] (5 of 5) [CW-11359/2020]

20. In case, the petitioner is found entitled for promotion

against the vacancies of the year 2021-22, he shall be conferred

notional benefits only and not actual monetary benefits. The

seniority list be accordingly modified.

21. The writ petition so also the stay application and

interlocutory application stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 64-AbhishekS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)