Madhya Pradesh HC Directs To Consider Police Officer's Promotion Which Was Withheld Due To Pendency of Criminal Case Against Him Since 1996
The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the Government to consider a police officer’s promotion which was withheld on account of the pendency of a criminal case against him since 1996.
The police officer was promoted to the position of an ‘Inspector’ after the registration of a criminal case against him under Sections 379 and 212 of I.P.C., but later there were hindrances in the promotion process. The Court noted that the officer’s case was being “kept in a closed cover only on account of pendency of the said criminal case in the court at Uttar Pradesh” which was pending for the last twenty-eight years.
A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal observed, “It has come on record in that case that during the pendency of the said criminal proceedings, petitioner was given out of turn promotion on 14/09/2006 on the post of Inspector and, then a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was convened on 1/01/2018 for promotion on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in which petitioner's case was also considered but due to pendency of the criminal proceedings, his name was kept in a sealed cover envelop and juniors to the petitioner were promoted.”
Advocate Manoj Kumar Chansoriya represented the petitioner, while GA Manas Mani Verma appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner argued that the mere initiation of a false criminal case should not result in keeping his promotion recommendations in a sealed cover, citing a precedent from the Allahabad High Court in Umesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. where the Court had held that initiation of a false criminal case against an individual working in furtherance of his duty should not result in keeping the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in a sealed cover.
In this backdrop, the Court directed that “sealed cover be opened and if petitioner is found fit for promotion as per the recommendations of the D.P.C., the said recommendations be acted upon with a condition that the promotion if so granted will be subject to outcome of that criminal case.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Vijay Kumar Punj v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Manoj Kumar Chansoriya
Respondents: GA Manas Mani Verma
