Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(5) Thus the challenge to the inquiry is not sustainable. Accordingly the punishment imposed, that is, forfeiture of one year's approved service entailing in reduction in his pay from Rs. 118.taRs.ll5 per month is to be upheld. .

(6) As .noticed above the petitioner has also challenged the reversion from the post of Head.Constable., It is an admitted case that he was promoted as an officiating Head Constable on March 19, 1962 and continued function as such till June 5, 1971. The plea is that by virtue of provisions or Punjab Police Rule 13.18 he stood automatically confirmed in that rank after having .served continuously for those years as a Head Constable.

(8) The petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice was not considered satisfactoty. According the disciplinary authority directed that be be reverted and also his name be be removed from the promotion list from June 5, 1971.

(9) Before noticing the case law cited by the learned counsel for the parties in support of that rival contentions I may note that the petitioner is now a practicing lawyer at Delhi In view of the serious allegations contained in the show cause notice (annexure 'F) especially the allegation that he was cunning and unreliable, I asked Mr. Kathuria, learned counsel fur the petitioner, whether he Would like the Court to go into this aspect of the case in view of the fact that the petitioners now holding a position of trust and is obviously a useful member of the society. I must record that Mr. Kathuria to be rather reluctant to press the petition. But after receiving instructions from his client,'who was present Court, stated that for decision on the applicability of provisions of Punjab Police Rule 13.18 it was not necessary for the court to go into the merits of this aspect of the case. According to him whatever the allegations in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner intaglio show or portray, the notice itself could be held to be bad as before its issuance the petitioner put in continuous officiating service of more than 2 years and accordingly was deemed to have been confirmed as a Head Constable. In support of his contention he relied on two decisions by two different division benches in Sat Pal and others v. Delhi Administration, 1974 (1) S.L.R. 733 (Delhi)(1) and unreported decision in Naut Ram, S. I. v. Union of India and others, L.P.A..106of 1974 decided on August 14, 1981(2) In those two cases, police officers who had been admittedly promoted in officiating capacity were declared to have been deemed to be confirmed after the expiry of the probation period of two years by virtue of Punjab Police Rule 13.18. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that in view of the decision of a full bench 'in Ram Chander v. Delhi Administration, Delhi, . 1975 (1) S. L. R. 216(3) the law laid in the said two. ewes cannot be considered .to be good law. According to her in view of the observations in Ram Chandcr's case the petitioner herein, who was promoted in officiating capacity, cannot be said to have been promoted on .probation and, therefore,-.the provisions Of Punjab Police Rule 13.18 do not come into play at all She has brought to my notice that G. C. Jain,. J.. in Balwant Singh v. Union of India and others, C.W-No. 402 of 1972 decided on October 7, .1983(4) has distinguished the case of Sat Pal (supra) and had. upheld the non-confirmation of an officiating Assistant Sub Inspector on the expiry of two years, period as provided in Rule 13.18 on the ground that there was no. difference in a temporary appointment and an officiating appointment and til) such time a promotee in officiating capacity is specifically put on probation, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed as envisaged in the said rule.

(11) In Sat Pal's, case (supra) the plea raised in the 'petition regarding the petitioner's .severs ion from the post of Assistant 'Sub inspector to' that of Head Constable was 'not decided as during the pendency of the Writ petition the order of reversion had been cancelled and the petitioner confirmed as an Assistant Sub Inspector. As a result his writ petition became infructuous except with regard to his seniority as an Assistant Sub inspector. which Sat Pal was claiming from an earlier date. The contention was that the Assistant Sub Inspectors junior to him bad been confirmed while he had been ignored without there being anything against him. It was in these facts that on analysis of the Punjab Police Rules, particularly Punjab Police Rule 13.18, it was observed that that rule in. substance l.).ys down that all police officers promoted to the higher rank shall be on probation for two years on completion of which the officer must either be reverted or confirmed,, but the period of' probation cannot be extended. B. C.Misra J. speaking for the division bench held that, "THIS period 'of probation can' be curtailed by the appointing authority by giving the promoted officer credit' of the period he spent on service in officiating capacity. Rule 13.18 does not require an express order for probation, lit fact. -all promotions are subject to the rule and condition of being placed on probation under rule 13.18 and during this period, the authorities have to, on its" expiry, either confirm or revert him. The provision in rule 13.18 empowering the appointing authority to permit periods of officiating service to be counted towards the period of probation, is not in fended to confer a right on the appointing authority to pick and choose from amongst the police officers found fit for promotion and give benefit of automatic confirmation under rule 13.18 to some and to deny it others. It is unfortunate that the appellants have been kept in officiating capacity for a number of years .without consideration of their case for substantive promotion and without express determination of their fitness or otherwise for promotion in substantive capacity. The rule requires the higher officers to keep a strict watch on the conduct and efficiency .of the officers and pass definite orders with regard to their fitneswithi. i a reasonable time, but it is a legal right of the public servant equally placed to be censored for promotion. If there is nothing against the officers senior. senior qualified officers, must be promoted and confirmed and if there be anything against then which militates against their fitness the must be a definite decision according to law holding unfit for promotion or confirmation every time their juniors are considered for promotion."

(12) Thus the ratio of his case is that the police officers who have been promoted on probation are to be confirmed if there is nothing against them.

(13) In Naut Ram's case (supra) the respondent was confirmed as an Assistant Sub Inspector ort April 1, 1957 and was promoted as a Sub Inspector on April 27, 1957. In April 1960 he was sent for training to Phillore and after training he was reformatted as Assistant Sab Inspector October 1, 1960. It appears that the departmental proceedings were. initiated against him and he was given punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service, on April 10, 1963. At about the same time the respondent was grained an Emergency. Commission in the Army, After his release from the Army in November, 1965 he joined his parent department. while he was in the Army service the Deputy Inspector General had issued show cause notice to him for enhancing the penalty of forfeiture of one year's approved service and ultimately by an order, of May 12, 1964, he was reverted to the post of A.S.I. as a result of enhancement of the punishment. This demotion was challenged by him. It appears that he was enrooted sometimes in the year 1963 and confirmed as a Sub Inspector on August 15, 1970. The learned single judge set aside the punishment awarded to him. It was further held that having been confirmed as an Assistant Sub Inspector on April l, 1967 the question of reproofing him as an A.S.I, on October 1, 1960 did not arise. The further plea that by virtue of Rule 13.18 of Punjab Police Rules Naut Ram must be deemed to have been automatically confirmed after a .period of two years from the dale he was promoted-as a Sub Inspector from December 27, 1957 was upheld. In the writ petition a categorical statement had been made by the writ petitioner that he wasp emoted as Sub Inspector on the said date in a substantive vacancy on a permanent post and hence he was automatically confirmed en December 27, 1959. It appears from the perusal of the judgment passed in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by tile Union of India that those averments in the writ petition were not denied. Hence it was directed that his seniority as Sub Inspector be counted from the date of deemed confirmation.