Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/132/2021 on 4 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 132 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Lalit Dewari. ..........Petitioner
(By Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others. ...Respondent
(By Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand)
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Constable in
P.A.C. and subsequently, he was promoted as Platoon
Commander in 2008. In the year 2015, petitioner was
serving in City Petrol Unit. An F.I.R. under Section
342, 394, 120-B and 411 I.P.C. was lodged against
petitioner and several other persons serving in C.P.U.,
on 19.09.2015 in Police Station Kathgodam. Based on
the F.I.R., petitioner was arrested and he was
enlarged on bail on 02.02.2016. A charge-sheet was
filed against the petitioner and learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance thereupon.
3. However, on a Criminal Misc. Application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner and other
accused person, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.
4477 of 2015, initiated pursuant to the said F.I.R.,
were quashed based on compromise arrived at
between the complainant and the accused persons.
4. Punishment of censure was imposed upon
petitioner, vide order dated 16.11.2017. Petitioner
challenged the punishment order by filing Revision
Petition, which was allowed by Additional Director
General of Police, vide order dated 28.12.2019, on the
ground that for same charge, another co-accused was
not punished.
5. The relief sought by petitioner in this writ
petition is reproduced below:-
"A- A writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus commanding the Respondents to
consider the claim of Petitioner for promotion on
the post of Company Commander from the date
juniors to the Petitioner were given promotion
and give him all the consequential benefits w.e.f.
30.12.2020."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
apprised that after filing of the writ petition, petitioner
has been promoted as Company Commander.
7. Petitioner has staked claim for promotion as
Company Commander from the date of promotion of
his juniors.
8. Learned State Counsel has drawn attention
of this Court to the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by
Commandant, 31st Battalian, P.A.C., Rudrapur.
Perusal of the said order reveals that Senior
Superintendent of Police, Haridwar has withheld
integrity of petitioner for reporting year 2015. Thus,
she submits that since integrity of petitioner for 2015
was not certified by the Competent Authority, which
constitutes an adverse material against the petitioner
and in view of such adverse material, respondents
were justified in not promoting the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the order passed by Senior Superintendent of
Police, Haridwar was not communicated to petitioner,
it cannot be relied upon to deny promotion to him, in
view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725.
10. The submission, made by learned counsel
for the petitioner appears to be attractive, in first
blush, however, on deeper scrutiny, this Court does
not find any substance therein. The adverse entry,
namely the order of withholding petitioner's integrity,
was duly communicated to him by an order dated
25.11.2020. The said order has been enclosed as
Annexure No.10 to the writ petition.
11. The appeal filed by petitioner against the
order dated 25.11.2020 was dismissed by the
Competent Authority on 02.12.2020 and the matter
was not taken any further, therefore, the order of
withholding petitioner's integrity has become final.
12. From Perusal of paragraph no. 21 of the writ
petition, it is revealed that selection for promotion was
made on 29.12.2020 when Departmental Promotion
Committee held its meeting.
13. Petitioner's appeal against the adverse entry
was rejected on 02.12.2020. The order passed by
Appellate Authority was not challenged before any
higher forum. Thus, there was an adverse material
against petitioner on the date when selection was
held. Thus, in view of that adverse material, the
Departmental Promotion Committee was justified in
not recommending petitioner for promotion.
14. Even otherwise also, even though the
punishment of censure imposed upon petitioner, vide
order dated 16.11.2017, was set-aside by the
Revisional Authority on technical grounds, however,
the fact remains that blemish cast upon the
petitioner is not washed out by quashing of
proceedings of criminal case registered against him
under Section 342, 394, 120-B and 411 I.P.C., based
on a compromise with the complainant.
15. Since petitioner's integrity for the reporting
year 2015 was withheld by an order dated
25.11.2020, which has attained finality, therefore,
petitioner cannot claim any vested right of promotion
from the date of promotion of his juniors.
16. In such view of the matter, there is no
scope for interference in the matter.
17. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Navin
