Delhi High Court
Ex. Constable Manik Lal Singh vs The Union Of India & Anr. on 17 September, 2014
Author: Kailash Gambhir
Bench: Kailash Gambhir, Najmi Waziri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 212/2013
EX. CONSTABLE MANIK LAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. H.P. Chakravorti, Advocate
versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal & Mr. Gaurav
Khanna, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 17.09.2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks (i) issuance of a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside of the Charge Memorandums dated 22.01.2009 and 13.04.2011 and (ii) issuance of a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for financial up- gradation under ACP/MACP Schemes besides his promotion to the post of Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector with all consequential W.P. (C) 212/2013 Page 1 of 4 benefits of arrears of pay and allowances along with interest @ 18% per annum.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the stand taken by them is that the petitioner was awarded 11 punishments by various Disciplinary Authorities for several acts of indiscipline due to which he was found 'Not Yet Fit' for the grant of ACP/ MACP benefits from the period 1999 to 2010 and was also found unsuitable for retention in service beyond 30 years of service. It is also the case of the respondents that in compliance with the direction given by the Ministry of Personnel, Grievance and Pension, DoPT, New Delhi, vide letter Nos.35034/1/97- Estt. (D) dated 09.08.1999 and 35034/3/2008 -Estt. (D) dated 19.05.2009, the case for the grant of Assured Career Progression and MACP benefits to the petitioner was considered by the Screening Committee at various units every year and every time he was found 'Not Yet Fit' for the grant of the said benefits due to his consistently bad record of service. It is also the stand of the respondents that on 21.03.2011, the MACP Committee found him fit for the grant of MACP benefit, accordingly the same was granted to the petitioner.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. W.P. (C) 212/2013 Page 2 of 4
4. The petitioner is guilty of suppressing from this Court the fact that he was awarded 11 punishments for various acts of misbehaviour and misconduct and that his case for the grant of Assured Career Progression and MACP benefits was considered by the Screening Committee every year.
5. The parameters and the time period taken into consideration for the grant of promotion and for the grant of ACP/MACP benefits are not the same. The petitioner has not denied the fact that he was awarded punishments for various misconducts in different units vide orders dated 30.10.1987, 28.09.1991, 11.06.1994, 27.01.1995, 11.05.1995, 09.03.1996, 08.03.1998, 04.12.2001, 18.04.2002, 16.11.2006 and 19.04.2007 and it is only on account of these punishments that the various screening committees even after having examined the case of the petitioner every year found him 'not yet fit' due to his consistently bad record of service.
6. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity or illegality in the Charge Memorandums dated 22.01.2009 and 13.04.2011 issued by the respondents for not granting the financial up-gradation to the petitioner under the ACP/ MACP Schemes and also for not granting promotion to W.P. (C) 212/2013 Page 3 of 4 the petitioner because of not having secured a minimum 50 marks.
There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 v W.P. (C) 212/2013 Page 4 of 4