CWP No.18254 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18254 of 2005 Date of decision:October 15, 2008 Vibhore Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner, who is working as an Inspector in the Punjab Police, has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing an order dated 14th October, 2004, the operative part of which is reproduced below:- “In the light of the above stated facts, it is very clear that the orders issued earlier were not in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules/Govt. Instructions. Therefore, the orders issued vide No.11197/E-6 dated 21.11.01 (issued by DIG/PB, Patiala) and No.12734/A-1 dated 29.4.2003 are hereby withdrawn with immediate effect and Inspr. Vibhor Kumar No.1073/W is placed to his substantive rank of ASI in Wireless Wing with immediate effect. He is also repatriated to his parent unit i.e. Wireless Wing. He will also get his promotion as per seniority and merit in his CWP No.18254 of 2005 2 parent cadre i.e. Wireless Wing. He may be relieved immediately with the direction to report to IGP Computer and Telecommunication Punjab, Chandigarh for his new place of posting under intimation to quarters concerned. .. following orders were issued by this office are hereby withdrawn:- 1. Entry to promotion list E-II (Exemptee) order issued vide No.32515-20/A-1 dated 30.11.2000. 2. Promotion as Offg. Sub. Inspr. w.e.f. 28.9.2001 order issued vide No.32004-22/A-1 dated 21.11.2001. 3. Grant of promotion list “F” (Executive) and promotion as Inspector order issued vide No.24222- 27/A-1 dated 27.6.2003. As such Inspr. Vibhor Kumar No.1073/W (now 28/FGS) is placed to his substantive rank of ASI in Wireless Wing with immediate effect. He will also get his promotion as per his seniority and merit in his parent cadre i.e. Wireless Wing. He may be relieved immediately with the direction to report to IGP/Computer and Telecommunication, Punjab, Chandigarh for his own place of posting under intimation to quarter concerned. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala.” The brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Punjab Police on 27th June, 1985. He was promoted as Head Constable on 7th July, 1989 and thereafter as Adhoc Sub Inspector on 23rd May, 1994. The petitioner was confirmed as ASI on 2nd March, 1995. In the year 2000, the petitioner was allocated to the Patiala Range. On 23rd May, 2000 the petitioner CWP No.18254 of 2005 3 was appointed as Inspector (Own Rank and Pay). Thereafter, on 29th April, 2003, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Inspector. On 15th October, 2004, however, the impugned order (Annexure P-5) was issued whereby the petitioner was directed to be reverted to his parent department i.e. Wireless Wing and to be placed in the substantive rank of ASI. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. No reply has been filed in this writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once he had been promoted to the post of Inspector, there was no reason to revert him all of a sudden to the post of ASI in his parent cadre. In fact, he had been duly promoted by an order passed by the DGP in terms of Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. According to the learned counsel, there is no justification, whatsoever, in repatriating him to his parent cadre and reverting him to the post of ASI. The counsel has also placed reliance upon a similarly placed lady Inspector namely, Raka Ghirra who had been absorbed as Inspector of Police in the General (Executive) line w.e.f. 6th July, 2001 whereafter she joined the District Police. She had even been promoted as DSP by now. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioner as his name has been ignored while that of Raka Ghirra has been accepted. CWP No.18254 of 2005 4 Learned counsel for the State has, however, vehemently contended that when it was found by the department that orders in respect of the petitioner had been wrongly passed, the same were reviewed and it was decided to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department in the substantive rank of ASI. We now proceed to deal with the rival contentions of the counsel. A perusal of Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rules shows that the power of relaxation contained in the said Rule can be exercised “with respect to any class or category of persons”. This apart, while exercising this power, certain reasons have to be recorded in writing. However, the order passed by the DGP in the present case shows that the power has been exercised not in respect of any class or category but in respect of an individual. Besides, the order passed by the DGP does not specify the reasons for granting the relaxation except that it was in recognition of his outstanding performance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has contended that illegal benefit had been conferred upon the petitioner dehors the mandate of statutory rules. From a perusal of the record it is clear that the petitioner was granted out of turn promotion while on deputation. Rule 13.21 was invoked to grant promotion to the petitioner. However, the order whereby the said rule was invoked, does not give any reasons for exercise of power under the said rule. Needless to say that the DGP could not have invoked rule 13.21 to grant relaxation to the petitioner, at his whim. The order must show valid reasons for exercise of this power CWP No.18254 of 2005 5 for promoting a police official to a higher rank. In the present case, however, no such reason is decernible from a perusal of the impugned order. As regards the case of lady Inspector Raka Ghirra, it appears from a perusal of the record that she was inducted in the Telecommunication Wing as Probationer Inspector on compassionate ground due to sudden demise of her husband who was serving as a DSP in Punjab Police. However, later on it was found that she had been inadvertently enlisted in the Wireless Wing as Inspector on compassionate ground even when there was no sanctioned post of lady Inspector in the Wireless Wing of the Punjab Police. It was realized by the respondents that post of Women Police existed only in the District Police. This apart, it was realized that her educational qualifications were totally different from that required in the Wireless Wing. Her case was thus reviewed and she was treated to be an Inspector of Police in General (Executive) line w.e.f. 6th July, 2001 when she joined in the District Police. In due course she was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the general cadre. Thus, we find that there is no similarity between the case of the petitioner and that of lady Inspector Raka Ghirra. It cannot, therefore, be said that there has been any discrimination with the petitioner on the basis of absorption of Inspector Raka Ghirra in the General (Executive) line of Punjab Police. Thus, reliance placed on the case of Raka Ghirra is misplaced. CWP No.18254 of 2005 6 We are of the considered view that an official, who has been erroneously granted a higher rank while on deputation, does not acquire a vested right to retain the same. He cannot be heard to say that withdrawal of the rank erroneously granted in the department where he was on deputation, would amount to arbitrariness on part of the Government and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are further of the view that the Government can always correct a bonafide mistake at any stage, though of course in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any element of arbitrariness on part of the respondents while repatriating the petitioner to his parent cadre in his substantive rank of ASI. There being no infirmity in the impugned order, we do not find it a fit case to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We thus find no merit in the writ petition. No case for quashing the impugned order is made out. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE October 15, 2008 'rajpal'