IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7211 of 2008 R.P.MISHRA, SON OF LATE RAM RUP MISHRA, PRESENT RESIDENCE OF A/18 ANANDPURI, P.S. S.K. PURI, DISTRICT PATNA, RETIRED INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D.I.G. PATNA. ----- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SHREE BIJAY JAIN, RETIRED D.G.P., BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SHREE S.K. SAXENA, RETIRED D.G.P., BIHAR, PATNA. 4. SHREE NARAIN MISHRA, RETIRED D.G.P., BIHAR, PATNA. 5. SHREE KAMLESH BHAT, RETIRED D.I.G POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. SHREE NAND LAL, SECTIOINAL OFFICER, D.G.P., BIHAR, PATNA. 7. SHREE GHANSHYAM, SECTIONAL OFFICER, D.G.P., BIHAR, PATNA. -- RESPONDENTS with CWJC No.7425 of 2008 R.P.MISHRA, SON OF LATE RAM RUP MISHRA, AT PRESENT RETIRED INSPECTOR, D.I.U., PATNA A/18 ANANDPURI, P.S. S.K. PURI, DISTRICT PATNA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. ANUGRAHIT RAM, RESERVED INSPECTOR. 3. SHREE BIRESH PRASAD SINGH, INSPECTOR 4. SHREE SUMIT KUMAR, D.I.G. 5. SHREE R.P. VERMA, RETIRED INSPECTOR 6. SRI M.K. SINGH, SURGEONT MAJOR 7. SRI ANJANI KUMAR SINGH, DY. S.P., ALL S.B. BIHAR, PATNA. --- RESPONDENTS ----------- 10 4.7.2011 The petitioner has filed this writ application praying therein that he should be granted notional promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Indirectly he has also made a prayer that his date of promotion to the post of Inspector ought to be shifted to the year 1974 from the date on which he was granted promotion i.e. 6.4.1988. The petitioner filed CWJC No. 4607 of 1981 in which he had made the same prayer which was disposed of on 10.11.1982. In the writ application the petitioner had made a prayer that he should be granted promotion to the post of Inspector w.e.f. 1974 as granted to those persons who were appointed with 2 him in the year 1966. Subsequently he was granted promotion to the post of Inspector in the year 1974. The second writ application numbered as CWJC No. 5888 of 1989 was filed by the petitioner praying that his date of promotion to the Inspector should be shifted to 1974. The writ petition was disposed of on 23.9.1991 by which the petitioner was directed to file a representation before the authorities concerned for redressal of his grievances. The third writ application numbered as CWJC No. 5407 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of on 8.11.1995 (Annexure- 2). The petitioner appeared in person and I may refer to the findings of this Court. “After noticing that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner was under consideration of the D.I.G., Central Range, Patna. The Court came to the conclusion which is as follows: “In fact the proceeding of the D.G. Selection Board is also not before this Court. The petitioner has already been granted promotion to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 1988. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be granted seniority w.e.f. 1974 in the rank of Inspector of Police.” The Court observed that if the D.G. Selection Board/D.I.G., Central Range, Patna comes to a finding that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner in pursuance of a departmental proceeding 19 of 1990 is set aside, in that case it will be open to the petitioner for reconsideration of his case of promotion to the post of Inspector of Police from due retrospective date. Obviously the D.G. Selection Board/D.I.G. Central Range has not set aside the punishment 3 awarded to the petitioner in lieu of the departmental proceeding which would be apparent from memo no. 5674 dated 29.1.2007 (Annexure-1). These writ applications have been filed praying therein that the petitioner should be given notional promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The simple answer to this prayer is that none of the persons who were promoted in the year 1981 to the post of Inspector have been granted promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Since this is the fourth time that the petitioner is coming to this Court in relation to being granted promotion first to the post of Inspector and thereafter to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, this Court will reproduce the proceedings and the A.C.R. of the petitioner to bring home the fact that he could not have been promoted or considered for promotion in views of the aforesaid service record. It may be noted here that at no stage had the petitioner challenged the infliction of punishments in the departmental proceedings or disputed the A.C.R. on the basis of which the petitioner could not be promoted along with his batchmates. Sl. No. Departmental Proceeding No. Major Punishment Awarded Date of Occurrence Date of ending the effect of Punishment. 1 2 3 4 5 1 45/1975 One black mark. 11.09.1974 11.09.1977 2 1/1976 Two black marks 20.7.1976 20.7.1979 4 3 17/1976 Three black marks forfeiture of increment of three years (Year of the occurrence was 1976) Increment up to 1983 as final order passed in the year 1980 dated 10.02.80 4 06/1977 Three black marks forfeiture of increment of three years (Year of the occurrence was 1976) Bad effect of punishment up to 1983 as final order passed in the year 1980 dated 10.2.1980 5 64/2001 Two black marks forfeiture of increment of one year 1995 1998 Year wise A.C. Rs. Of the petitioner available is as follows: o"kZ & 77 (01-04-77 ls 31-08-77) & vlarks"kizn (unsatisfactory) o"kZ & 77&78 (01-09-77 ls 31-03-78) &(vfHk;qDr vafdr gS fd budk ekufld larqyu Bhd ugha gSA vf’k"Vkpkfjd O;ogkj ds dkj.k fuyfEcr ,oa fo-dk- ds v/khu fd;k x;k dqN fof{kIr tSls gSaA (It is mentioned in the remark of his ACRs that his mental balance is in disorder due to indiscipline behavior he was suspended and kept under departmental proceeding. It is felt that he is as a frustrated person) o"kZ & 76&77 (16-02-76 ls 31-03-77) vkSlr ls uhps vuq’kklughurk ,oa mn~naMrk (mfpr volj rFkk psrkouh nsus ij Hkh ljdkjh vkokl [kkyh ugha fd;k x;k] QyLo:Ik foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds v/khu fd;k x;k ) (Below average, indisciplined and ill-mannered. After being warned and given proper time he had not vacated the government quarter that 5 is the reason he was kept under d ep ar tm en t al pr oce ed i n g . ) o"kZ & 75&76 30-05-75 ls 15-02-76) vPNk (irrelevant, ,oa loose talk ds vknh gSa (Good) o"kZ & 73&74 (01-04-73 ls 31-03-74) vkSlr ls uhps (Below Average) o"kZ & 74&75 (01-07-74 ls 22-05-75) mRd`"V (excellent) o"kZ & 78 (01-04-78 ls 24-11-78) vkSlr ekufldz:i ls vlarqyu dh fLFkfr esa o"kZ & 79&80 (01-04-79 ls 31-03-80) vkSlr ekufldz:i ls vlarqyu dh fLFkfr esa (average, he is in the position of mental disorder) o"kZ & 80&81 (24-04-80 ls 31-03-81) ekufldz:i ls fof{kIr (Mentally frustrated) o"kZ & 81&82 (1-04-81 ls 31-03-83) ekufldz:i ls fof{kIr (Mentally frustrated) o"kZ & 82&83 (1-04-82 ls 31-03-83) vfLFkj ekufld fof{kIr (Mentally unstable, Mentally frustrated) o"kZ & 84&85 ( ) vPNk (Good) o"kZ & 85&86 (1-10-85 ls 31-03-86) vPNk (Good) o"kZ & 86&87 ( ) vPNk (Good) o"kZ & 88&89 (4-6-88 ls 31-03-89) vPNk (Good) o"kZ & 89&90 (1-4-89 ls 31-03-90) vkSlr ls uhps (ekufldz:i ls fof{kIr) (Below average Mentally frustrated) o"kZ & 90&91 (1-4-90 ls 31-03-91) vkSlr ls uhps (ekufldz vfLFkjrk gS) (Below average Mentally frustrated) o"kZ & 91&92 (1-4-91 ls 31-03-92) vPNk (Good) o"kZ & 92 (1-4-92 ls 17-11-92) vkSlr (Average) o"kZ & 92&93 (23-11-92 ls 31-03-93) vPNk (Good) o"kZ & 93&94 (1-4-93 ls 31-03-94) vkSlr dk;ZdrkZ (Average worker) o"kZ & 96&97 (1-4-96 ls 31-03-97) vPNk (Good) o"kZ & 97&98 (1-4-97 ls 31-03-98) vkSlr ls uhps@drZO; ,oa nkf;Ro dk Kku dh deh@vkykSP; izd`fr ds gSa (Below average lacking sense of duty & responsibility) A man of criticizing nature. o"kZ & 98&99 ( ) vPNk (Good) o"kZ & 99&2000 (1-4-99 ls 31-03-2000) vkSlr (Average) The aforesaid facts would disclose that the petitioner was to be considered for promotion in the year 1974. In 1975-76 the petitioner had already been awarded three black marks. As such it would appear that he was not considered fit for promotion in the year 1974. The statements made in the affidavit of the State that the D.G. Selection Board was constituted in the year 1976, 1982 and 1985. The petitioner at all three stages could not be given promotion due to the adverse effect of the punishments 6 awarded to him and the unsatisfactory A.C.R. The D.G. Selection Board also in compliance with the order of this Court considered the claim of promotion in the year 1996 and 2007 but at all stages due to the said adverse remarks and departmental proceedings, the D.G. Selection Board did not find the petitioner fit for promotion. This Court does not find any ground for interference in the matter. The petitioner would not be entitled to be promoted on notional basis. Since he has retired years back to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the persons who were promoted along with the petitioner to the post of Inspectors have not been given promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly this Court finds that the date of promotion to the post of Inspector cannot be shifted to the year 1974. In the result, these writ applications are dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)