HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4016/2008 (OA No.109/1997) Date of Decision: May 8, 2009 Hari Nath ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Add. A. G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. & Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision delivered by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as reported in Sardul Singh Head Constable v. Inspector General of Police & Ors. (1970) SLR 505. While working as Assistant Sub Inspector, penalty imposed pursuant to the disciplinary action taken against him was set-aside vide order dated 7.1.1993 (Annexure A-1). Similarly, the adverse entries made in his Annual Confidential Reports were expunged by the appropriate authority vide order dated 22.12.1993 (Annexure A-2). It is the petitioner’s contention that due to the said disciplinary proceedings and adverse entries, his claim for Upper School Course, as stipulated under Rule 13.10 of the Punjab Police Rules was wrongly ignored. As a consequence thereof, persons junior to him were not only sent for the said training but subsequently promoted as Sub Inspectors on 2 12.7.1993. Subsequently, petitioner also successfully completed his Course and was promoted as Sub Inspector on 7.7.1995. It is his contention that since his claim was wrongfully ignored by the respondents he be considered for promotion w.e.f. 12.7.1993, the date when the persons junior to him were promoted. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the order dated 1.2.1997 (Annexure A-10), whereby his representation for according said benefits stood rejected. From the record, it is evident that the reason of rejection is evidently incorrect as petitioner had made detailed representations (Annexures A-5 to A-7) which were already on record as on the date of passing of the said order. Importantly, the authorities themselves have noticed the fact that the petitioner‘s case for review was not taken up by the department within time. In the reply, the respondents have also stated as under:- “In reply to this para it is submitted that the name of the applicant was duly considered by the D.P.C. for selection to the Upper School Course alongwith others but due to punishment and adverse remarks (which were expunged subsequently) the applicant was not found fit whereas the junior of the applicant having no adverse entries or punishment were deputed for the said course.” In the circumstances, Annexure A-10 is quashed. As a consequence thereof, the respondents are directed to take a fresh decision by taking into account the material placed by the petitioner in the present petition as also the law laid down in Sardul Singh (supra). The decision shall be taken after affording due opportunity of 3 hearing/representation to the petitioner, within a period of three months from today. Needless to add, the respondents shall pass a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. In the event of the authorities finding favour with the petitioner’s plea for consideration for promotion, necessary consequential order shall be passed immediately. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 8, 2009 (rana)