IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.9586 of 2008 Date of decision : May 26, 2011 Puran Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Yudhvir Singh, vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner, who has been serving in the Police Department since 1990, joined as Assistant Sub Inspector. He was promoted as Sub Inspector on 9th August, 1996. According to him, he was due for confirmation as Sub Inspector in the year 1999, but was not confirmed, as he had been visited with the penalty of censure and also there were some adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports. He made representations and the inquiry into the allegations, upon which penalty of censure was based, was dropped. Adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports had also been expunged. Thereafter, the petitioner was confirmed in the year 2000. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Petitioner’s grievance is that on account of his non-confirmation, on due date, in the year 1999, he was not considered for promotion to the post of Inspector, by the Departmental Promotion Committee, which made some recommendations in the year 1999. 4. In the reply, respondents have stated that since there was penalty of censure and also there were adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner, he was not confirmed and on account of his being not confirmed as Sub Inspector, he was not considered for promotion to the rank of Inspector, by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is not in dispute that some juniors of the petitioner were considered and promoted as Inspectors. 5. As per reply, Departmental Enquiry, which had been ordered against the petitioner, was dropped. If that is so, penalty of censure, which was based on the allegations, in respect of which Departmental Enquiry was instituted, automatically stood revoked. In fact, there is an order to this effect, copy of which is Annexure A-5. Adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports were also expunged. If that is so, petitioner ought to have been confirmed from the date, when he was due for confirmation, in the year 1999 and the Departmental Promotion Committee’s recommendations, in which name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the …3… post of Inspector and his juniors were promoted, reviewed. Consequently, present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to confirm the petitioner from the date he was due for confirmation and the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, for the posts of Inspectors, made in the year 1999, be reviewed and the petitioner be also considered for promotion to the post of Inspector. In case the petitioner, on such consideration, is found fit for promotion, he shall be promoted from the date when the Sub Inspector immediately junior to him was promoted, on the basis of the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings of 1999. Petition stands disposed of. May 26, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J