Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Baljeet Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(2)SLJ30(CAT)
ORDER Chitra Chopra, Member (A)
1. By this O.A. the applicant (Baljeet Singh) has assailed his supersession for appointment by promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS) from the Haryana Police Service during the year 2004. He has made this application against the illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide action of the respondents and contended that persons with much inferior ACRs have been recommended for appointment to the IPS even during the pendency of criminal cases against one of them in violation of the statutory regulations.
2. Briefly, the factual status of the case is that the applicant is one of the senior-most Deputy Superintendent of Haryana Police and his name figures at Serial No. 3 of the gradation/seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Haryana Police whereas the names of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 appear at Serial Nos. 5 and 8 respectively. There were two vacancies for the year 2004. The applicant has the last chance of consideration for appointment to the post of IPS for the year 2004 only because thereafter he would have become ineligible under the relevant rules because of crossing 54 years of age. Keeping this fact in view as well as delay in holding the Selection Committee Meeting for the year 2004 by respondents No. 1 to 4, the applicant approached the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal, which, inter alia, directed the official respondents to hold meeting of the Selection Committee within six weeks. This time limit expired on 22.12.2005. Learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. L.R. Khatana, has stated that although the meeting was held on the directions of the Tribunal but it was convened in a post haste manner and the applicant came to know from reliable sources that he was not selected. He has challenged his supersession on the following grounds:
(i) He has every reason to believe that he has a better/superior record of service than respondent Nos. 5 and 6 during the relevant years.
(ii) Against respondent No. 5 (Sh. Jagwant Singh) an FIR has been registered under Sections 498-A/406/506/323 IPS, PS, Model Town, Panipat and he was also arrested in the said case in 2003 and was released on personal bond and bail as per directions of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Further chargesheet in the aforesaid criminal case had also been filed in the Court of Law much before the Selection Committee Meeting was held on 20.12.2005. Still in violation of the provisions of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, the official respondents recommended his name unconditionally for promotion to IPS. It has also been submitted that respondent No. 5 has been impleaded as a party in criminal miscellaneous cases which are under investigation of the CBI as per directions of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.
3. By way of relief the applicant has sought direction to the respondents to maintain status quo during the pendency of the present 0.A. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to produce the ACR Dossiers of the relevant year of the applicant and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 together with relevant records relating to the proceedings of the Selection Committee held on 20.12.2005 for perusal of the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for applicant has contended that there is every reason to believe that the Selection Committee was prejudiced against the applicant because of motivated, false and frivolous complaints made against him by vested interest.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 following submissions have been made:
(a) Both the officers, namely, the applicant Sh. Baljeet Singh and Sh. Jagwant Singh were in the consideration zone for the vacancies for the year 2004. Seniority list alone is not the criteria for selection by promotion from Haryana Police Service to the IPS but it is the over all service record of an office on the basis of which selection is made.
(b) The State Government had forwarded the original confidential record of all the candidates falling in the zone of consideration for the year 2004 to the UPSC. Six officers, namely, S/Shri Ashok Kumar, Baljeet Singh, D.K. Bhardwaj, Jagwant Singh, Hemant Kalson and Rajinder Singh were included in the zone of consideration for the two vacancies for the year 2004. Evaluation of the CRs was made by the UPSC/Selection Committee as per the IPS Regulations, 1955. Out of the six officers, Sh. Jagwant Singh and Sh. Rajinder Singh were recommended for the vacancies of 2004 and S/Sh. D.K. Bhardwaj (provisionally subject to the integrity certificate) and Hemant Kalson for the vacancies of 2005.
(c) While sending material to UPSC information regarding the criminal case against Sh. Jagwant Singh was intimated to the UPSC. However, the FIR had been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court and the CBI is yet to initiate the investigation ordered by the Hon'ble High Court. Hence the same could not be a bar for his consideration.
5. Mr. J.B. Mudgil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 (Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at the outset has submitted that the Selection Committee presided over by the Chairman/Member of the UPSC makes selection of State Police Service (SPS) Officers for promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS). The meeting of the Selection Committee is held in accordance with the provisions of the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations") which have been made in pursuance of the IPS Recruitment Rules. He elucidated the procedure for holding of the Selection Committee Meeting and emphatically stated that the selection is made on the basis of relevant records and following the relevant rules and regulations. He averred that the O. A. is premature as the recommendations of the Selection Committee that met on 20.12.2005 for preparation of the suitability list of officers during the year 2004 and 2005 for promotion to the IPS Cadre of Haryana have not yet attained finality under Regulation 7 of the Regulations.
6. He drew our attention to Regulation 5(5) of the Regulations which reads as under:
5(5) The list shall be prepared by including the required number of names first from amongst the officers finally classified as 'Outstanding' then from amongst those similarly classified as 'Very Good' and thereafter from amongst those similarly classified as 'Good' and the order of names inter-se within each category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Police Service.
Provided that the name of an officer so included in the list shall be treated as provisional if the State Government withholds the integrity certificate in respect of such an officer or any proceedings, departmental or criminal, are pending against him or anything adverse against him which renders him unsuitable for appointment to the service has come to the notice of the State Government.
Explanation!: The proceedings shall be treated as pending only if a charge-sheet has actually been issued to the officer or filed in a Court, as the case may be.
7. He submitted that the select list has been prepared strictly in accordance with the above provisions. While refuting the main contention of the applicant that he has not been properly assessed by the Selection Committee and has been superseded in an illegal and malafide manner and this has been done due to extraneous reasons, Mr. Mudgil has submitted that a bare reading of the Regulation 5(5) (supra) makes it clear that the eligible officers will be placed in the select list in accordance with their classification i.e., name of the officers classified as 'Outstanding', then 'Very Good' and thereafter 'Good'. It is thus clear that an element of supersession is inherent in the Regulations and seniority plays a role only in respect of cases where officers are similarly graded. As per the uniform and consistent procedures and practice followed by the UPSC, the Selection Committee examines the service records of each of the eligible officers with special reference to the performance of officers for the years preceding the year for which the Select List is prepared. While doing so, the Selection Committee also reviews and determines the overall grading recorded in the ACRs to ensure that this is not inconsistent with the grading/remarks under various parameters or attributes recorded in the respective ACRs. The final grading assigned to an Officer by the Selection Committee may be different from the overall grading in his ACR. Thus, the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee in preparing the Select Lists is uniformly and consistently applied for all States and Cadres for induction into the All India Services.
8. Mr. Mudgil, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 has relied upon the following case laws in support of his contentions:
1. Nutan Arvind v. Union of India and Ors. ;
2. Durga Devi and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ;
3. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shrikant Chapekar 1992(3) SLJ 73 (SC) : JT 1992(5) SC 633;
4. Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan ; and
5. Smt. Anil Katiyar v. Union of India and Ors. 1997(1) SLJ 145 (SC) : 1997(1) SLR 153.
9. He also brought to our notice the order dated 8.6.2006 passed by his Tribunal in the O.A. No. 1416/2005 "Inder Raj Soni v. UOI and Ors."
10. One of the contentions of the applicant is that Shri Jagwant Singh respondent No. 5 has allegedly been placed in the select list in violation of the provisions of the Regulations as a FIR was registered against respondent No. 5 under Sections 498A/406/506/323 IPS and he was also arrested in the said case in the year 2003 and was released on personal bond by the Hon' ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The charge-sheet in the aforesaid criminal case was also submitted in the Court much before the Selection Committee held on 20.12.2005, still his name had been recommended in violation of the Regulations. Mr. Mudgil had highlighted in Para 8.3.1 of the counter of respondent No-4 the procedure for consideration and provisional inclusion of an officer against whom a departmental enquiry/ criminal enquiry/unexpunged adverse remark is pending or whose integrity certificate has been withheld by the State Government. Explanation-I to Proviso (5) of Regulation 5, which has been quoted earlier would make the provision clear.
11. He further submitted that a provisionally included officer cannot be appointed to the All India Services until his name is made unconditional during the validity period of the Select List which is specified under Regulation 7(4) of the Regulations. He also drew attention to Proviso (3) to Regulation 7 which reads as under:
Provided that if an officer whose name is included in the Select List is, after such inclusion, issued with a charge sheet or a charge sheet is filed against him in a Court of Law, his name in the Select List shall be deemed to be provisional.
The above provision makes it clear that the pendency of departmental enquiry/criminal proceedings or withholding of the integrity certificate etc., only affects the provisional or unconditional inclusion in the Select List and has no bearing on the assessment itself by the Selection Committee. In the instant case, the State Govt. had intimated that there was a criminal case against respondent 5 but the charges had not been framed and, therefore, as per proviso to Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations, the Committee did not take the criminal case as pending against respondent-5. Mr. Mudgil vehemently denied the contention of the applicant that the Selection Committee was prejudiced against him because of some motivated, false and frivolous complaint made by the vested interests against him.
12. Respondent No. 5 Shri Jagwant Singh in his counter affidavit submitted that he was senior to the applicant and his service record was better than the applicant. Hence his name was recommended as per his knowledge. He has given a comparative service record of the applicant and himself. At this juncture, we may observe that it is somewhat unusual for an officer to reproduce assessment of the ACRs which are supposed to be confidential. Presumably he had access to his ACRs as well as of the applicant. Although this is not an issue before us, we would like to mention the impropriety of this fact.
13. In regard to the pendency of criminal case against respondent-5, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel that an FIR was lodged under Sections 498 A/406/506/323 IPC by daughter-in-law of the respondent No. 5. Since the allegations in the FIR were prima facie false, he was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. The meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 20.12.2005. On the said date, the Trial Judge had not even framed charge against any of the accused. respondent-5 Shri Jagwant Singh had filed Criminal Misc. application before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing of the FIR. The Hon'ble High Court stayed further proceedings in the matter. Finally, the High Court vide judgment dated 22.3.2006, quashed the FIR. Learned Counsel for the respondent-5 has relied on the case Union of India v. Sukhmohinder Singh etc. C.W.P. No. 15847/CAT of 2004 wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that:
We are of the considered opinion that a bare perusal of the Explanation-I to Regulation 5(5) makes it abundantly clear that criminal proceedings could only be held to be pending against the officer if the charge has been framed by the Trial Court. In the present case, undoubtedly, the charge has not been framed.
14. It is also submitted that as far as CBI enquiry being conducted in pursuance to Criminal Misc. No. 56138-39/2004 and Criminal Misc. No. 49227/2004 Sushma W/o Jaibir Singh, Constable v. State of Haryana and Ors. is concerned, the said enquiry has not even been initiated. The investigation is yet to be commenced by the CBI.
15. On another issue raised by the applicant regarding seniority, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for respondent -5 that there has been a long standing dispute regarding inter se seniority between the Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Haryana Police Service and the seniority list is still subject matter of the writ petitions before the High Court. However, in the gradation list of Inspectors, the applicant is junior to respondent-5.
16. Respondent No. 6 Shri Rajinder Singh has submitted a short affidavit virtually reiterating the contention of the official respondent regarding procedure followed by the Selection Committee and refuting the contentions of the applicant that there was any malafide in the selection. It has also been submitted that the Selection Committee being a high level Committee makes assessment in a fair and objective manner by adopting a uniform and consistent procedure and after carefully examining the service records of all the eligible officers. Respondent No. 6 also mentions about the inter se seniority disputes between the Deputy Superintendents of Police before the High Court.
17. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for applicant Mr. L.R. Khatana very strongly pleaded the case of applicant based on the following submissions:
The Selection Committee has acted in an arbitrary manner and in violation of the provisions of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The Selection Committee is stated to have assessed the applicant as "Good who besides being seniormost has very Good/Outstanding service record, whereas the persons with much inferior ACRs and junior to applicant are stated to have been assessed as "Very Good" and recommended for appointment to the IPS. Further, one of the candidates, namely respondent No. 5 has been recommended for appointment even during the pendency of the criminal case wherein the charge sheet had been filed in the Court of Law and was pending against him as on 20.12.2005 in violation of the statutory regulations (First proviso to Regulation 5(5) read with Explanation-I and the law reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpeet Singh Bhullar and Anr. v. UOI and Ors. 2006(3) SLJ 68 (SC) : 2006 I AD (SC). The Selection Committee has thus assessed the applicant as "Good" in an illegal, arbitrary and malafide manner and without proper application of mind to the relevant factors. It is the admitted position of the UPSC that the Selection Committee examines the ACRs of the eligible officers for the preceding five years of the year of the meeting. This position has been admitted by the UPSC before the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. UOI and Ors. O.A. 99/99, decided on 7.4.2004 (Para 5.1).
18. Mr. Khatanadealt at length on the point of criminal case pending against respondent No. 5. He has placed reliance on the case of State of A.P. and Ors. v. Goverdhan Lal Pitti to enforce his contention that the action of official respondent No. 4 in recommending the name of respondent No. 5 for promotion to IPS unconditional is not only illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory but malafide also. He has also submitted that the official respondents were proceeding with malafide intentions against the applicant. He relied on the case of Prabhakar Singh and Anr. v. UOI and Ors. .
19. We have heard the extensive arguments of Mr. L.R. Khatana and also the submissions made by Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj for R-l, Mr. Manjit Singh for R-2 and R-3, Mr. J.B. Mudgil for R-4 and Mr. H.K. Katari Counsel for respondents No. 5 and 6.
20. The crux of this case is whether there has been any violation of rules and regulations governing the promotion from State Police Service to Indian Police Service or there has been any arbitrariness, unfairness or malafide in the assessment as a result of which the applicant could not be included in the Select List whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who were junior to applicant were included in the Select List.
21. In so far as the first issue regarding procedure is concerned, we do not find any violation of procedure in holding or convening Selection Committee meeting. By all counts, the meeting has been held in accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations.
22. Before we come to the matter of assessment, we may look at whether consideration of respondent No. 5 Shri Jagwant Singh should not have been done in the face of criminal case stated to be pending against him. On this issue as has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sukh Mohinder Singh's case (supra), criminal proceeding can only be held pending against an officer if the charge has been framed by the Trial Court. As no charge had been framed till then against respondent No. 5, there could be no bar to his selection by the Selection Committee. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Bhullar's case (supra) as under:
9. Explanation-I as quoted above will make it crystal clear that the proceedings shall be treated as pending only if a charge-sheet has actually been issued to the Officer or filed in a Court. The language employed in the statute is unambiguous. The Explanation nowhere states about charges having been framed by the Trial Court. The High Court, in our view erroneously read something to the Explanation, which is not provided by the Regulation. There is no concept of charge being framed by the Trial Court in the context of Explanation-I of the Regulation.
23. We now deal with the main grievance of the applicant, namely that he has not been selected on ground of unfairness, arbitrariness, and malafide intention. One of the reliefs sought by the applicant is that the respondents be directed to produce the ACR dossier of the relevant years and respondents No. 5 and 6 together with relevant records relating to the proceeding of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 20.12.2005 for perusal of the Tribunal. With a view to satisfying ourselves, the respondents were directed to produce the relevant records. We have perused the original minutes of meeting of the Selection Committee. The meeting was presided over by the President viz. the Member of UPSC. The fact of FIR having been registered against Shri Jagwant Singh, and other related facts have been recorded in the minutes. It has been observed that no charge has been framed against him so far in the said case and he is still facing trial.
24. In so far as placement of applicant's name in the Select List of 2004, it had been recorded in the minutes that the Committee had examined the records of the officers whose names were included in Annexure-I. On the basis of the Confidential record and on an overall relative assessment of their service records, the Committee assessed the officers as indicated against their names in Annexure-I of the minutes.
25. We have seen Annexure-I which is the assessment sheet wherein the gradings have been given with regard to five years' ACRs from the years 1998-99 to 2002-2003. We have also carefully perused the ACR dossiers of all the six officers who were considered by the Selection Committee for the Select List of 2004. We do not find any inconsistency in the overall record of the officers as it emerges from their respective ACR dossiers and the assessment made by the Selection Committee in respect of all the six Officers. As the ACRs are the main inputs on the basis of which the Selection Committee categorizes the officers, we are satisfied that the assessment has been done in a proper manner. No unfairness or malafide intention can on the face of it be inferred by the assessment made by the Selection Committee. It would be in order to observe that it has been uniformally held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court should not normally interfere with the evaluation made by the Selection Committed/UPSC unless it appears that the Committee had not made fair and proper assessment. This has been held by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and Ors. .
Paras 12 and 13 of K. Rajaiah's case reads as under:
12. We have also gone through the records of assessment placed before us by the learned Counsel for UPSC. The arguments in the additional affidavit coupled with the contents of the record make it clear that the first respondent could not be selected for the reason that he did not get the gradation of "outstanding" for four years in a block of five years that was taken into account for the purpose of evaluating the merits of the candidates. The learned Counsel for the first respondent points out that for the year 1993-94 which falls within the five-year range, the first respondent ought to have been graded as "outstanding" in conformity with the grading in the ACR. However, the Selection Committee graded him as "very good" in view of the difference of opinion expressed by the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer. We do not find any unfairness or arbitrariness in grading the first respondent as "very good" for the year 1993-94. If so, as he gets "outstanding" grading only for three years his overall grading cannot be "outstanding" in view of the existing guidelines adopted by the Commission. Normally, the Court will not interfere with the evaluation done by the Commission on a consideration of relevant material. However, we have some doubts on the validity of guidelines evolved in this behalf. The procedure of assigning the overall grading as "outstanding", only if an officer was classified as such in the ACRs of four out of five years, seems to dilute the procedure of selection by merit and give primacy to seniority to some extent.
13. Taking an overall view and having review of selection process by an expert body, we are not inclined to nullify the decision taken by UPSC.
26. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nutan Arvind v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), and in Smt. Anil Katiyar v. Union of India and Ors. (supra).
27. In the above background that after careful consideration of the facts and material placed on record as well as taking into account all the contentions putforth by the learned Counsel for the parties, we feel that the assessment made by the Selection Committee is quite in order and hence no interference is warranted by us.
28. In this view of the matter, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.