1 2025:CGHC:43937 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2783 of 2017 * - Indrapal Singh S/o Late Ram Parikha Singh, Aged About 52 Years R/o Qr. No. G- 2/7, Police Wireless Colony, Pension Bara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Jail And Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Director General Of Police Wireless/ Telecom, Police Headquarters, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002 3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Wireless/ Telecom), Police Headquarters, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002 4 - Departmental Promotion Committee Through The Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Wireless/ Telecom), Police Headquarters, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002 5 - Superintendent Of Police (Wireless/ Telecom), Bhilai Zone, Sector 6, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Rajkishor Singh, Sub Inspector (Wireless/ Telecom), Bhilai Zone, Sector 6, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 7 - Balwant Kumar Singh, Sub Inspector (Wireless/ Telecom), Bhilai Zone, Sector 6, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 8 - Yogeshwar Rao, Sub Inspector (Wireless/ Telecom), Bhilai Zone, Sector 6, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 9 - Rajesh Chandra Shahi, Sub Inspector (Wireless/ Telecom), Bhilai Zone, Sector 6, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 10 - Satish Kumar Dubey, Sub Inspector (Wireless/ Telecom), Bhilai Zone, Sector 6, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.02 15:11:58 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Yudhveer Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in calling the entire records of the proceedings held by the respondent No. 4 for issuing the order impugned / selection list (Annexure P-1). 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in expunging the untrue & vague adverse entry made by the respondent No. 3/ 5 in the petitioner's Confidential Report. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to modify the order impugned / selection list (Annexure P-1) and thereby to promote the petitioner ahead of his juniors (respondent No. 6 to 10) with all consequential benefits. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in granting the cost and any other relief to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is holding substantive post of Sub Inspector (Wireless / Telecom) under the respondents. According to the seniority list published on 01.04.2015, his name was placed at serial no. 04 and in the seniority list of 01.04.2017, his name was at serial no. 01 above the respondents No. 6 to 10. It is also pleaded that respondents No. 6 to 10 have been promoted vide order dated 20.06.2017. It is further pleaded that in ACR of 31.03.2016, the petitioner was graded with 'D'. It is also stated that the said ACR of 2016 was never communicated to the petitioner and on account of said ACR, the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector (Wireless / Telecom). 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the respondents ought to have communicated an adverse remarks in the ACR immediately in year 2016. He would contend that the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion on account of uncommunicated ACR of 2016 and therefore, the decision of the respondents is erroneous, whereby the name of the petitioner has not been considered, though the petitioner was at serial No. 1 in the seniority list of 2017. He would pray to quash the promotion order dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure P-1). He would further contend that the respondents may be directed to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion from the date of promotion order of respondents No. 6 to 10. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State would contend that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was inflicted with penalty of stoppage of one increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 02.05.2015. She would contend that the DPC was convened on 20.06.2017 and penalty inflicted was the reason for non-consideration of name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector (Wireless / Telecom). She would further contend that the petitioner should have approached the higher authority for upgradation of ACR of 2016. She would submit that according to the SOP issued on 13.03.2002, Clause 3-A provides that if any employee has been awarded any major punishment within preceding 05 years, or his integrity is doubtful, his name would not be considered for promotion for period of 05 years. She would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 4 6. It is true that the ACR of 2016 was not communicated to the petitioner, but at the same time major penalty of stoppage of one increment was passed against him by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 02.05.2015. According to SOP dated 13.03.2002, if any employee has been awarded major punishment within preceding 05 years, his name would not be considered. The Departmental Promotion Committee did not consider the name of the petitioner for promotion on account of imposition of major penalty and this fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the present petition. 7. The penalty was inflicted vide order dated 02.05.2015, at present the period of 05 years has already passed, therefore, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondents No. 2 and 3 claiming therein promotion as well as upgradation of ACR of 2016 and in turn, the authorities are directed to consider such representation expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order 8. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. 9. Interim order granted on 29.08.2017 is hereby by vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti