- (1.) SHORT question but of great significance that arises in this case is about the time for which an adverse entry recorded against a police officer would effect his chances of promotion. Petitioner Bakhshish Singh joined Punjab Police Force on April 8, 1968, as a probationary Assistant Sub Inspector. He was confirmed as such on April 8, 1969. He was deputed to undergo Upper School Course in 1972 and after he completed the course, he was promoted as Sub Inspector in 1972. With effect from September 15, 1979, he was confirmed as such, vide order dated June 26, 1980. He was subsequently brought on list 'f'. The petitioner was confirmed as Inspector on May 7, 1979. Respondent No. 4 Mani Ram was confirmed as Inspector with effect from February 15, 1980, as would be clear from order Annexure P-2. In this manner, Mani Ram was junior to the petitioner. An adverse entry was recorded in the annual confidential report of the petitioner for the period April 1, 1984, to March 31, 1985. This was the result of strained relations developed with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shri S. S. Bains, on account of petitioner's action of conducting a raid on a rice mill at Sangrur. Representation filed against the aforesaid adverse remarks was allowed vide order Annexure P-5. The adverse remarks were expunged on acceptance of his earlier representation, the petitioner thus represented that he be promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from the date person junior to him was promoted. This representation annoyed the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police respondent No. 2, who moved the State Government that the remarks already expunged should not be treated as 'expunged in toto'. The petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition in this Court, which was withdrawn in order to get review of the order aforesaid. The petitioner served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ultimately filed a civil suit, which was decreed on May 15, 1991, upholding order of the Punjab Government dated August 9, 1989. Copy of the civil Court judgment is Annexure P-5. The result thereof was that this adverse entry existing on the service record of the petitioner stood quashed. This judgment and decree was not challenged. The petitioner again made a representation that respondent No. 4 Mani Ram, who was junior to him was promoted and his case for promotion be considered from the date person junior to him was promoted. Vide order Annexure P-7, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on temporary basis subject to approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission, from the date he was to assume charge. This order is dated February 14, 1992. The petitioner again represented vide Annexure P-8 to the State Government that he should have been promoted retrospectively from the date respondent No. 4 Mani Ram was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and he should be allowed subsequent promotions also. This representation was rejected by the Government vide order Annexure P-9 dated August 29, 1992. The petitioner has also produced copies of commendation certificates, which are Annexures P-10 to P-16. He further relies upon an order annexure P-17, for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, wherein reference has been made to Rule 6 (1) (i) (a) of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 and government instructions contained in letter-November 13, 1990. The rule aforesaid referred to the minimum period of six years to officiate as Inspector of Police for being promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. This period was subsequently reduced to four years and vide instructions of 1990, referred to above, by another year.
(2.) ON notice of motion having been issued, written statement has been filed on behalf of the official respondents (No. 1 to 3 ). The stand taken up is that there was an other adverse entry in the service record of the petitioner for the period September 4, 1981 to March 31, 1989, which was conveyed to the petitioner on June 25, 1982. The petitioner concealed this fact in the writ petition. On merits, it is stated that on consideration of the entire service record and the alone adverse entry, as mentioned above, the petitioner was not considered suitable for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police retrospectively. The alone adverse entry aforesaid was taken into consideration and keeping in view serious nature of the entry, he was not considered for promotion.
(3.) IN the replication filed by the petitioner, it is asserted that the aforesaid adverse entry was a stray and stale entry and was not at all relevant for the purposes of granting promotion. The entry was communicated and a representation was filed against the same, copy of which is a Annexure P-18. However, the same was rejected vide order dated December 7, 1982, Annexure P-19.;