Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Applicant filed a rejoinder wherein he states that the legal notice dated 26.2.2020 and the IA filed by the applicant in WP (Crl.) No. 230 of 2019 only indicate that the knowledge of the applicant was limited to the factum of the cabinet decision dated 24.9.2020. The action of the Govt. is conclusive when the provisions of the Constitution and Business Rules under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution are complied with. Between the Cabinet decision and its implementation, there could be changes. In the States of M.P, Haryana, Punjab & Orissa, the number of DGP posts are in excess of the sanctioned strength. The power given to the State Govt. to create posts has not been withdrawn. The respondents have improperly averred that the order dated 26.9.2019 was served by referring to the stamp account register which indeed is not a dispatch register. A Dak Book has to have details of the senders/addressees with running serial along with dates etc and the postage stamp expenditure cannot double up as a Dak Register. Delivery of document is confirmed only if Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is satisfied. Procedure prescribed under law to deliver a document has to be followed.There is no date specified about the date of delivery of the order under question. When the date of delivery of the order dated 26.9.2019 is not indicated then the question of limitation under Section 21 of the AT Act would not arise. The applicant has challenged adverse orders issued against him in time. Therefore, the contention that the applicant used the caveat as a basis for filing the OA is baseless. Service of an order through a caveat was never heard in the annals of legal history. The cause of action is about the reversion of the applicant and the relief sought was production of such a document which was done by annexing the reversion order along with the reply statement dated 1.10.2020. The incident of 2000 reported by the respondents is irrelevant to the present dispute. The FIRs got registered by the applicant are of relevance since R-4 is one of the accused in the cases cited. The fact that the closure report in FIR No.17/2017 accepted by the competent court was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in CRR No.114/2020 has not been revealed by the respondents. Filling up of temporary posts does not require concurrence of GOI as per Rule 4(2) of IPS (Cadre)Rules, 1954 and confirmed by the Law Department while responding to the GOI letter dated 12.10.2018. Subsequently, the State Govt. has sent the name of the applicant vide letter dated 17.12.2018 (A-28) to GOI for selection to the post of the DGP (Head of Police Force) of the State. The GOI letter dated 12.10.2018 has only sought a factual position in regard to the number of DGP posts. The temporary posts created have to subsist upto 31.12.2019.The promotion of the applicant as DGP was not temporary, but permanent. The post of DG created was temporary, but the promotion was permanent. Law permits regular promotion against temporary posts. Applicant has been targeted as per authentic media reports. The suspension and revocation orders of the I.O in NAN case do not contain reasons and that there is no procedure prescribed by EOW in regard to filing replies by the I.O in the competent court. The motive to suspend the I.O was to obstruct the investigation in NAN case and falsely implicate the applicant in the said case. The IAS officers Sri Tuteja and Sri Shukla, who have been named in the charge sheets have not been suspended, whereas the applicant was suspended based on filing of false FIRs, which have been stayed by the Courts, implying bias on the part of the respondents. Despite the Hon'ble Apex Court staying the proceedings initiated vide FIR Nos. 6/2019 &7/2019, which form the basis for suspension, the applicant is continued to be kept under suspension. The members of the SIT formed in NAN trial are the complainants in the FIRs 6/2019 & 7/2019.The applicant has been cooperating with the investigating authorities and true to speak, the EOW refused to record the statement of the applicant in respect of FIR No.7/2019 after having been summoned. To record his statement, the applicant went to the extent of representing to the Chief Secretary on 6.5.2019. The complaint filed by the private person Sri Manik Mehta on 17.6.2019, a perpetual complainant, for alleged offences, which are 21 years old, is similar to the one filed by R-4 on 15.5.2014, which was examined and closed. As a citizen, the applicant has the right to question a wrong decision of the State. The respondents have delivered official letters by hand through senior police officers under acknowledgement by the applicant or his representative. Applicant claims that there are 40 such letters delivered. Some letters were delivered through the advocate of the applicant Sri Amin Khan and they were duly acknowledged. When the applicant or his representatives were not available the official letters were pasted at the official residence. Further, when the respondents were informed that he has shifted to Delhi which was duly admitted by them in their reply in OA 566/2019 and yet, the order dated 26.9.2019 was not sent to the Delhi address, though some other letters including the caveat were sent to the Delhi address. Applicant has been corresponding with the respondents from March 2019 citing the Delhi address. The respondents admitted on one hand before the Hon'ble Apex Court in WP (Crl.) No. 230/2019 that they have deputed a team of officers from Chhattisgarh to New Delhi and intercepted the phones of the family members to trace the applicant for serving notices and on the other hand, respondents felt that the order dated 26.9.2019 could be allegedly served by simple post. Strangely before and after 26.9.2019, respondents adopted the delivery of letters as explained but to deliver the order 26.9.2019, they have deviated from the regular procedure followed.Knowledge of the Cabinet decision would not mean delivery of the order dated 26.9.2019 and in the legal notice dated 26.2.2020 by the counsel of the applicant, there was only a mention of the Cabinet decision. Even in the IA cited, it was mentioned that an order was passed on 24.9.2019 withdrawing the promotion but it was not about any order dated 26.9.2019. Delivering the order is the responsibility of the respondents and it is not for the applicant to seek the order.Respondents on 5.4.2019 have fixed the subsistence allowance as that of DG as per Rules after he was placed under suspension. The same was paid for 15 months after the alleged withdrawal of the promotion order. After filing the OA, the said allowance was reduced vide orders dated 8.12.2020/15.1.2021 hurriedly. The order in 2010 is about an officer Sri Paswan, who completed his 2 years tenure unlike in the case of the applicant. Creation of additional ex-cadre posts has been done by the respondents on multiple occasions. The 2 other officers promoted vide order dated 6.10.2018 were also mechanically demoted though they were within the sanctioned strength of (2+2) by 30.6.2019/31.8.2019.

Thus, as on 1.12.2019, the applicant being among the top 4 senior officers he could have been considered against one of the 4 DGP posts regularly sanctioned and vacant. However, on 26.9.2019 respondents took a decision to withdraw the regular promotions granted on 6.10.2018 and posted the officers to the lower posts of Additional DGP. It is well settled in law that an employee promoted on a regular basis can be demoted to a lower post only by way of a disciplinary proceeding. The facts of the case indicate that the applicant has been demoted consequent to a cabinet decision dated 24.9.2019. The respondents have not filed any statutory rule to affirm that by way of a cabinet decision regular promotions granted can be annulled and those promoted can be demoted. Adopting a stance of promoting/demoting officers without following the rule book/law will make the personnel policy go hay wire. Principles of Natural Justice infringed.

The Ld. Respondents' counsel has also cited the letter ofMHA dated 12.10.2018 wherein a reference is made to the promotions of the applicant and that of his two colleagues on 6.10.2018 and a factual report was called for. The letter does not contain any direction to withdraw the promotion granted to the applicant and 2 others but made an observation that promotions could be in excess of the sanctioned strength. Be that as it may, any executive order/ communication of the MHA cannot override the statutory Rule 4(2) of the IPS(Cadre)Rules 1954 where in the State Govt. has been empowered to create posts in the cadre of DGP for a period of 2 years without the concurrence of the Central Govt.The legal wing of the State Govt. of Chhattisgarh has rightly observed that filling up of temporary posts does not require concurrence of GOI as per Rule 4 (2) of IPS(Cadre)Rules, 1954 while responding tothe GOI letter dated 12.10.2018, as is seen from the material papers filed by the applicant. Therefore, the letters of the State Govt. dated 4.12.2017, 27.12.2017 and that of the GOI dated 11.12.2017, 12.10.2018 respectively with reference to the creation of posts in the cadre of DGP, referred to by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents repeatedly to justify the withdrawal memo dated 26.9.2019, would not rework the legal position cited supra namely that the GOI letters cited can be no basis to review the promotions granted under statutory IPS cadre rules. Hence the apparent contention that the directions of the MHA could be the basis for the withdrawal of the promotions granted on 6.10.2018 holds no water whatsoever, given the lucid legal axiom laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra. There is no memo or any amended rule filed by the respondents which have taken away the power of the State Govt. to create posts in the cadre of DGP for a period of 2 years. Not leaving at that the respondents have cited the case of an officer who was a demoted in a similar circumstances vide order dated 1.4.2010. The applicant has clarified that the concerned officer Sri Paswan was demoted after the period of his temporary promotion was completed and not refuted by the respondents with an apt document. Whereas,promotion granted to the applicantwas prematurely withdrawn in Sep 2019, though it could havelasted upto Dec 2019 as per the memo dated 27.12.2017. Hence the memo 1.4.2010 banked upon by the respondents would not come to their rescue to further their contentions. In fact, the applicant has given the prevailing practice in creating temporary posts in the cadre of DGP by the Chhattisgarh State Govt. on multiple occasionsas under, and the same has not been rebutted by the respondents by filing appropriate documentary evidence.

Holding another DPC on 12.9.2020 to promote 2 officers who were promoted along with applicant in 2018 and another junior officer by placing the case of the applicant in a sealed cover, when the applicant was regularly promoted to the post of DG by a duly constituted DPC in 2018 is a difficult proposition to be upheld. To hold a DPC afresh without the demotion of the applicant having been done by way of a disciplinary process, the demotion lacks legal sanctity.The order of promotion of 6.10.2018 has not been lawfully modified so far to infuse life into the withdrawal order dated 26.9.2019. Conducting a second DPC for promoting a promoted officer is not heard of. In the instant case we reiterate that the promotion was regular and the posts were available to accommodate, be their nature being temporary or regular, to accommodate the applicant in the DG post by 1.12.2019. It is here that we find the respondents are on a slippery ground. The argument of the respondents that the other 2 officers whose promotions were withdrawn vide order dated 26.9.2019 have accepted the same is no acceptable argument since if someone who does not want to assert his legal right; it is his will and wish. Just because some others have not questioned the illegal action of the respondents in withdrawal of their promotion, the applicant ipso facto is not expected to accept the same and the law provides him the right to question a wrongful action, be it issued by any authority. That is the beauty and splendor of law. Therefore holding of a second DPC to consider the case of the applicant again for promotion to the post of DG to which he was promoted on a regular basis, is beyond the purview of rules and law for reasons expounded supra.