- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.11.2004 (Annexure -14) passed by Respondent No. 4 on the recommendation of the Central Selection Committee dated 16.10.2004. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant him promotion on the post of Reader S.I., with effect from 1.10.1996, i.e. the date from which his juniors were promoted. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: '' (i) The petitioner was initially appointed as Steno ASI in the year 1986 and posted in the confidential section of the Commandant JAP -4. After continued service in the aforesaid place till 12.12.2001, he was transferred to JAP - 5, Deoghar. (ii) When the cases of the officers for their promotion were taken up by Departmental Promotion committee, the petitioner's case was also considered and on being satisfied that the petitioner was eligible for promotion, his name was entered in the promotion list prepared on 16.3.2002. By the corresponding notification, dated 16.3.2002 (Annexure -1), he was granted promotion to the post of ASI, but with effect from the date of Notification. (iii) Being dissatisfied on the ground that he was entitled for promotion with retrospective date from 1996, the petitioner had submitted his representation before the concerned authorities, but when the same was not conceded, he filed a writ application before this Court, vide W.P.(S) No. 6136 of 2003. (iv) The writ application was disposed of by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Director General of Police, Jharkhand and with a corresponding direction to the D.G.P. to consider the petitioner's claim and pass a reasoned order. (v) The petitioner, thereafter, filed his representation and upon considering the same, the impugned order (Annexure -14), was passed, declaring therein that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion, in view of the fact that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of a complaint received on 6.12.2001, and in the departmental proceeding he was awarded punishment, and therefore, the petitioner, according to Rule, has to wait for a period of three years before gaining eligibility for promotion. On the aforesaid ground, the promotion which was ea'rlier granted to the petitioner by a notification dated 16.3.2002, was not given effect to and the petitioner continued to remain in the original post of ASI.
(3.) DR . S.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds stated in the impugned order are totally incorrect, misconceived and not in consonance with the records. Learned counsel asserts emphatically that on the date when the petitioner was earlier granted promotion, i.e. on 16.3.2002, there was no departmental proceeding pending nor was any punishment inflicted upon the petitioner. Referring to Annexure -6 and Annexure -7, which are the letters issued by the Commandant and the Inspector General of Police respectively, learned counsel explains that in both the aforesaid letters, the concerned officers have categorically declared that on the date when the petitioner's promotion was notified, there was neither any departmental proceeding pending against him nor was any punishment inflicted. Learned counsel adds further by referring to the provisions of Rule 726(lll) of the Police Manual, which deals with disqualification for admission to the promotion list or retention thereof, that a gap of three years is necessary after the infliction of major punishment before an officer is retained or considered or reconsidered for any promotion list. Learned counsel explains that since the petitioner did not suffer from any such disqualification on the date he was granted promotion, the respondents cannot refuse promotion to the petitioner and neither can they refuse his claim of promotion from the date when his juniors were granted promotion. ;