KARNAIL SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

A

B

KARNAIL SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 6, 1994

[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Service Law-Head Constables-Promotion-Reversion--Promotion of

juniors-Legality of.

C

The appellant-bead constables un_derwent intermediate course of training and were put in 'G' list and promoted as Sub- Inspectors. In 1984 they were selected for training of Upper S~bool Course. However, after completion of training, they were not included in 'E' list and instead of being promoted they were reverted as Head Constables while their juniors D were promoted on ad hoc basis. 'Ibey filed writ petitions in the High Court

which were dismissed.

In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the State, that the appellants were denied promotion due to bad service record and adverse Confidential Report.

E

Allowing the appeals, this Court

HELD : 1. When the appellants have been standing in the same position as two other Head Constables and were senior to them necessarily they should also get the same treatment, but that was not meted out. Even F assuming that they had adverse remarks, admittedly no equiry was made, no findings were given after conducting an enquiry and after giving an opportunity to the appellant:J. Therefore, their reversion as Head-Con stables is clearly illegal. Though they have been promoted subsequently they must be deemed to have been promoted on par with juniors with all the consequential benefits. [197-G-H; 198-A]

G

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 297-98

of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.86 of the Punjab and

H Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 2719 & 2676of1986.

196

KARNAILSINGHv. STAIB

197

S.K. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga and Tanuj Bagga Advs. for the Appellant A

G.K. Bansal and R.Yadav for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court delivered by :

Both the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since same B

point is involved for adjudication. These appeals by Special Leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 2636/86 dated August 13, 1986 and Civil Writ Petition No. 2719/86 of the Judgment. Admittedly the appellants were holding substantive posts as head-constables. They were sent to undergo C intermediate course of training in the year 1976 and they were put in the 'G' List and they were temporary promoted as officiating Sub-Inspectors on May 1, 1981. Thereafter on April 1, 1994 they were selected for undergoing training of upper school course at police training college, Phillaue in Distt. Jullundur. After completion of the training instead of promoting them as inspectors in the meantime they were reverted as D · head-constables. They filed writ petitions as stated earlier and the High Court dismissed the writ petitions.

It is seen from the proceedings Annexure - P at page the writ

petitions. 1

E

It is seen from the proceedings Annexure-P at page 32 of the Paper Book that the appellants were not promoted as Inspectors. Though the appellants have completed the upper school co~irse ending with the ter August, 1984 they have been ignored and not includoo on the E List due to their chequerred service record. Mota Singh and Kamail Singh though F have been categorised in that category, in paragraph 4 of the same order they have been promoted on ad hoc basis w.e.f. October 4, 1984. Admit tedly Mota singh, head constable No.80/119 and Kamail Singh head con stable 82/22 are juniors to the appellants in the seniority mentioned in the order. When the appellants have been standing in the same position as G Mota Singh and Karnail Singh and seniors to them necessarily they should also get the same treatment. Unfortunately that was meted out: It is sought to be contended on behalf of the State that due to bad record and adverse confidential report, they have not been given the promotion. Even assum- ing that they had adverse remarks, admittedly no enquiry was made, no findings were given after conducting an enquiry and after giving an oppor- H

SUPREME CO.URT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A timity to the appellants. Therefore, the reversion of them as head-con stables is clearly illegal. Though they have been promoted subsequently in 1987-88 respectively, they must be deemed to have been promoted on par with juniors w.e.f. October 8, 1984. The appellants are accordingly enti~ed to the above declaration and the consequential benefits. The appeals. arc allowed and writ issued. No· costs.

·

B

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed