Uttarakhand High Court
Bishamber Prasad Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.138 OF 2022
18TH JULY, 2022
Bishamber Prasad Joshi ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...... Respondents
Presence: -
Shri Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pradeep Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
The present appeal is directed against the order
dated 28.04.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in
WPSS No.1388 of 2021. The learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant.
2. The appellant, who was serving as a Revenue
Sub-Inspector (Patwari) in Tehsil Kalsi, District Dehradun
preferred the writ petition to contend that he is entitled to be
sent for training, which could make him eligible for promotion
to the next higher post of Supervisor Kanoongo. He submitted
that though the District Magistrate, Dehradun had nominated
him for such training, however, subsequently, vide order
dated 09.07.2021, the District Magistrate, Dehradun informed
Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand
that since the petitioner was arrested for accepting illegal
gratification and he remained in judicial custody for more
than 18 months, therefore, it could not be said that the
petitioner's service record was satisfactory. Consequently, the
Board of Revenue issued the order dated 21.08.2021 holding
that since the petitioner is undergoing trial under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, he was not suitable for
nomination for training.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellant is that the petitioner has to be presumed to be
innocent till proven guilty. Merely because a trap case is
pending against him, is no reason to deny him his right to
undergo the training to become eligible for promotion to the
next higher post of Supervisor Kanoongo. He submits that
many of his juniors have already undertaken the training and
promoted and he is losing out to them. He further submits
that similarly situated persons have also been allowed to
undergo training.
4. We do not find any merit in either of the
submissions. The fact that the petitioner was caught in a trap,
and is undergoing trial under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, is extremely relevant. It serves no purpose to send the
petitioner for training and to subject the State to incur
expenditure in that process when it is not even clear whether
the petitioner would eventually be entitled to be promoted, as
his promotion possibly cannot take effect till he is fully
exonerated in the criminal trial and the departmental enquiry
that may be initiated in respect of the same incident.
5. The submission that the petitioner's juniors have
been promoted, is neither here nor there, as these are
incidents of services.
6. Further submission that other similarly situated
were permitted to undergo the training, is also of no avail
since two wrongs do not make a right, and there is no
concept of negative equality. We also notice that the training
was to commence on 11.04.2021 for a period of 18 months.
That period is nearly over. The same is the position with
regard to the course which started on 01.04.2022.
7. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. The special appeal is, accordingly dismissed.
8. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner is
completely exonerated in the criminal trial and/or in the
2
departmental enquiry that may be initiated/ or being initiated,
it shall be open to the appellant to renew his request for
being sent on training.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
_____________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
______________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 18th July, 2022
R.Bisht
