Chattisgarh High Court
Ramayan Prasad Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12179
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3041 of 2023
Ramayan Prasad Sharma S/o R S Sharma, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of
Forest and Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Office of Principal Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Sector -
19, North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief Conservator of Forest, Circle Sarguja, District Sarguja
Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. AG and Mr. SHYNA DN:
Digitally signedby SHYNA AJAY cn=SHYNA
AJAY, Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate AJAY o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/03/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the promotion order dated 8.2.2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby several Foresters were promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger, while the petitioner was excluded. The petitioner further seeks to quash the communication/letter dated 31.5.2022 (Annexure P/2), under which his promotion was denied on two grounds : (i) pendency of a criminal case and the related bail proceeding and (ii) on adverse entry in the ACR for the year 2019.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition :
a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent State, particularly Respondent No. 3/CCF, to grant promotion to Petitioner to the next higher post of Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 08.02.2022 with all consequential benefits, monetary and otherwise; b. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the communication/letter dated 31.05.2022, issued by the Respondent No. 3/CCF;
c. This Hon'ble Court may also, be pleased to pass any other order in favor of Petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and 3 circumstances of the case with cost.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been working on the post of Forester since 12.4.2013. the petitioner attained eligibility for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger upon completion of five years of service i.e. on 12.4.2018, in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Class III (Non Ministerial) Forest Service Rules, 2012, . The promotion from Forester to Deputy Ranger is governed by the principle of 'seniority-cum- fitness' subject to the completion of requisite training. The petitioner completed the prescribed training in 2015, thereby fulfilling all criteria for promotion as on the eligibility date. The grievance of the Petitioner arose when he was denied promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger, despite being eligible for the same. This denial is reflected in the impugned promotion order dated 08.02.2022. Aggrieved by the denial of promotion, the petitioner approached the concerned Respondent i.e. Chief Conservator of Forests, Circle Sarguja, District Sarguja Ambikapur to redress his grievance by filing a representation dated 15.02.2022. When the said representation was not decided, he moved another representation dated 21.4.2022. Subsequently, by the communication/letter dated 31.5.2022, it was revealed that the petitioner has been denied promotion on two grounds : first pendency of the bail application (MCRC No.3215/2021) and second, an adverse entry made in the ACR for the year 2019. Hence, this Petition.
4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2019, adverse entry of which formed the basis for denying the petitioner's promotion, was in fact supplied to the petitioner only on 27.5.2022 i.e. much after the issuance of the promotion order dated 08.02.2022. . After receipt of the aforesaid ACR, the petitioner preferred representation dated 1.6.2022 in this regard. It is a settled position of law that an uncommunicated ACR cannot form the basis for considering an employee's promotion and any such consideration based on an uncommunicated ACR is a nullity. He submits that the second reason cited for denial of promotion was the pendency of MCRC No.3215/2021, however, the petitioner has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 2.6.2021 in the aforementioned bail application. Furthermore, in CRMP No.1248/2021 also, this Court stayed the further proceedings of Criminal Case No.357/2021 vide order dated 12.4.2022. He submits that the petitioner submitted representation(s) before the respondent authority in this regard also, however, the authority ignored the claim of the petitioner. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, he is only entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with law. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to implead necessary individual(s) who has been promoted in his place, therefore, the 5 petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. He further submits that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that a Departmental Enquiry has been initiated against him under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, on charges of embezzling the public exhequer to the tune of Rs.22,34,493/-. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion. He submits that on the one hand, the petitioner is seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger and on the other hand, he is seeking correction of his ACR. These are the distinct causes of action that cannot be challenged in a single petition. Moreover, the petitioner is facing a trial in Criminal Case No.357/2021 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh for offences under Sections 166, 341 and 392 of the IPC. While the petitioner was granted bail in MCRC No.3215/2021 in connection with the said case, the trial remains pending. In view of the pending criminal case and the Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner's conduct is under scrutiny under the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for promotion to a higher post cannot be considered at this stage. He prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection.
7. From a bare perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned promotion order dated 8.2.2022, whereby several Foresters have been promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger, however, the petitioner was excluded from the 6 promotion exercise that benefited the other Foresters. When the petitioner sought reasons for the said exclusion, the petitioner received the impugned communication/letter dated 31.5.2022. The impugned letter stated that the petitioner was not considered for promotion due to an adverse 'D' grading in his ACR for the year 2019 and the alleged pendency of the bail application (MCRC No.3215/2021). However, the record reveals that not only had the petitioner already granted bail vide order dated 2.6.2021 in MCRC No.3215/2021, but the underlying criminal proceedings were also earlier stayed by this Court vide order dated 12.4.2022 passed in CRMP No.1248/2021. Furthermore, the adverse 'D' entry in the petitioner's ACR for the year 2019 was never communicated to him. It is also submitted that on the date the DPC was convened, no Departmental Enquiry was pending against the petitioner.
8. It is well-settled law that unless a Departmental Enquiry is pending against an employee, he cannot be denied consideration for promotion.
9. Admittedly, in the present case, no Departmental Enquiry was pending against the petitioner at the time of the subject DPC meeting was convened. Further, at the time of consideration of the case for grant of promotion, no order in respect of the criminal case has been passed against the petitioner. As such, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to be considered for promotion only due to a pending bail application (MCRC No.3215/2021) or an uncommunicated adverse ACR. It is a 7 matter of record that on the date the DPC was convened, neither any charge sheet had been filed in the criminal case nor had any charge memo been issued in a Departmental Enquiry. Therefore, the reasons assigned for denying consideration in respect of case of the petitioner for grant of promotion is unwarranted. Consequently, the grounds raised by the respondents to justify the non-consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion does not appear to be reasonable.
10. In a judgment rendered in the matter of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, the following was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 37 :
37. We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the authority concerned, and the authority concerned must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public servants. The State must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.
11. Furthermore, in the matter of Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010, the 8 following was held in para 16 & 17 :
16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-
sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities 9 that conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: (ATC p. 196, para 39) "(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official; (2) *** (3) *** (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge-sheet filed before the criminal court and not before;"
17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.
12. The aforesaid proposition of law has been recently followed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in a judgment rendered in the matter of Jaspreet Singh Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 7764. The relevant portions of para 7, 8, 9 & 10 read as under :
7. The question, which is raised before this Court is that 10 as to whether merely registration of an FIR against petitioner will cover the case of the petitioner under "disciplinary cases" or "criminal cases" as has been reproduced herein before.
8. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, it has been clearly held that the pendency of criminal proceedings can only be treated as an impediment for purpose of promotion if in case the charge-sheet has been filed i.e. charges have been framed and the pendency with regard to disciplinary proceedings can only be treated as such in case the charge-sheet has been served upon the delinquent concerned.
xxx
9. In the present case, it is a conceded position, which has been conceded by the respondents themselves vide letter dated 15.01.2024 Anneuxre P-5) that no cognizance of the offence alleged to have been done by the petitioner had been taken with regard to the FIR registered against the petitioner as no charges have been framed yet against him so far.
10. That being so, the act of respondent of treating the disciplinary proceedings pending or the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner as an impediment so as to withhold the promotion of the petitioner is incorrect.
13. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, this Court is of the opinion that firstly, at the time the petitioner was considered for promotion in the DPC held in the year 2022, a charge sheet had not been filed in the criminal case; only an FIR was lodged and a 11 bail application was pending for consideration. Secondly, no Departmental Enquiry had been initiated nor had any charge memo been issued to the petitioner by the Department at the relevant time. As such, non-consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion by the DPC is without any cogent reason. The mere pendency of the bail application in a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny promotion to the petitioner. Furthermore, the ACR, wherein the petitioner was given 'D' Grade along with the adverse remark passed therein, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. These remarks were not communicated to the petitioner in a timely manner, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to submit a representation for rectification of the same.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the communication/memo dated 31.5.2022 (Annexure P/2) is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer (Deputy Ranger) in accordance with law. The case of the petitioner shall be considered with reference to the DPC held in the year 2021- 2022. The concerned authorities are further directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 1.6.2022 (Anenxure P/5), whereby the petitioner has sought rectification in the ACR pertaining to the year 2019, in which he was assigned a 'D' grade.
15. It is made clear that this Petition is being disposed of on the basis of pleadings on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. The respondent authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. If the 12 petitioner is found to have been eligible on the date the DPC was convened i.e. 8.2.2022, which resulted in the impugned promotion order (Annexure P/1) of the same date, his case shall be considered for promotion alongside the individuals who were promoted by way of the said order.
16. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay