CWP No. 12416 of 2013 (O&M). Case: Nasib Chand Vs State of Punjab and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)

Case NumberCWP No. 12416 of 2013 (O&M)
CounselFor Appellant: Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate and Gurdeep Kaur, Advocate and For Respondents: Avinit Avasthi, AAG
JudgesJaishree Thakur, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 226
Judgement DateFebruary 01, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Punjab (India)


Jaishree Thakur, J.

  1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 14th January, 2009 by which the seniority of the petitioner has been disturbed.

  2. The brief facts are, that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Punjab Police, District Ropar on 22nd September, 1980. He passed Lower School Course for the Session of 1989 and qualified for the rank of Head Constable. On account of the good work that was done by the petitioner, he was exempted from passing Intermediate School Course and his name was approved for admission to promotion list D-II (exemptee) with effect from 16th May, 2013 and was further approved for promotion to the rank of officiating ASI by order dated 16th May, 2003 itself. The petitioner, who had been brought on promotion list D-II and came to be promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector by order dated 16th May, 2003 had his salary was also fixed in the same scale. After having worked for more than 5 years as Assistant Sub Inspector, he was served a show cause notice dated 5th September, 2008 by observing that he has not done any outstanding work and, therefore, his admission to list D-II (exemptee) for out of turn promotion needed to be reviewed. The petitioner thereafter replied to the show cause notice giving various instances of his outstanding performance based on commendation certificates with cash awards, on the basis of which he had been brought to D-II list. However, by order dated 14th January, 2009, the seniority of the petitioner was changed. Against the said order, the petitioner represented to the authorities. During the pendency of the representation so moved by the petitioner, the Director General of Police constituted a Committee to look into the cases of those police officials who during the days of terrorism had done outstanding work but had been over looked. However, the representation of the petitioner was not taken up for consideration nor the impugned order dated 14th January, 2009 had been revoked. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

  3. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Gurdeep Kaur, appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the impugned order dated 14th January, 2009, by which the seniority of the petitioner has been brought down, is wholly unsustainable. It is argued that once a competent authority by invoking the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT