In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, the case between Ministry of Home Affairs and Mr. Ajay Jain revolves around disciplinary action and eligibility criteria for promotion. The Court’s decision is significant in clarifying the rules and procedures related to promotions and clean service records. Stay informed about the latest legal updates in this case.
Facts
- Petitioner joined CISF on September 29, 2017.
- Petitioner was asked to resubmit medical documents with doctor’s signature.
- Petitioner reported for duty late without proper documentation.
- Petitioner misbehaved with Company Writer and threw medical documents.
- The petitioner had been finally punished with a penalty of ‘Censure’ based on various disciplinary actions taken against him.
- The charges were issued to the petitioner through a memorandum of charge dated 20.07.2020.
- The eligibility conditions for the candidates applying for a certain position include having completed four years of regular service as of 1st January of the vacancy year in the rank of Sub-Inspector/Inspector with a clean record of service as prescribed by respective CPMFs.
Arguments
- The petitioner, an aspirant for the LDCE examination, was not allowed to appear due to a past disciplinary record, specifically minor penalties.
- The petitioner’s contention is that the rule requiring a ‘clean record’ for appearing in the LDCE is arbitrary and in violation of constitutional rights.
- The petitioners challenge the Recruitment Rules of LDCE, 2021 for Assistant Commandants in CISF, which require a ‘clean record’ for candidates.
- The petitioners had been punished with minor penalties, leading to their exclusion from the LDCE, 2021.
- The petitioners claim that disciplinary proceedings against them lacked adherence to principles of natural justice.
- The petitioner argues that the punishment of censure should not prevent them from participating in the LDCE as per relevant Government rules.
- The issue revolves around an incident where the petitioner allegedly misbehaved with a Company Writer, leading to disciplinary action.
- The petitioner’s plea involves the necessity of providing witnesses’ statements during disciplinary proceedings for natural justice compliance.
- The petitioners challenge the rejection of their candidature based on minor punishment, claiming it to be discriminatory and arbitrary.
- The petitioner asserts that the punishment of censure affecting their service career contradicts the rules permitting consideration for promotion by the DPC despite penalties.
- Mr. Ajay Jain, representing the respondents, argued that the petitioner concealed material facts from the Court, alleging suppression of the truth and suggestion of falsities.
- The petitioner is accused of misbehaving in an indecent manner with a Company Writer at Red Line-II, DMRC Delhi, and throwing his medical documents over the Company Writer.
- Disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner under Rule 37 of CISF Rules, 2001, after a prima facie case of indiscipline was found.
- The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself but failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his actions.
- The Company Writer, CT/GD Manoj Kumar, received and passed on the medical documents to another Company Writer as per standard procedure.
- During the petitioner’s medical rest period, he submitted his medical documents to another Company Writer as the designated personnel were not present.
Analysis
- The right of access to statements and documents, as well as the right to cross-examine witnesses, was denied to the petitioner.
- The penalty of Censure imposed on the petitioner was set aside, establishing a clean record for participation in the selection process.
- The officer’s seniority would be fixed based on his position in the panel at the end of the penalty currency period.
- Criteria for eligibility in LDCE for promotion to ACs (E) were outlined in Recruitment Rules of various Forces.
- The petitioner was not granted the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during the inquiry proceedings.
- Promotions for officers undergoing penalties would only be effective after the penalty period’s expiry.
- It was emphasized that even with minor penalties, the right to be considered for promotion should not be denied.
- The concept of ‘clean record’ was not explicitly defined in the Recruitment Rules.
- The authorities did not address the violation of natural justice regarding non-adherence to principles during the disciplinary process.
- Instructions from DOP&T regarding penalties on promotions and the role of DPC were referenced.
- Concerns were raised about changing the ‘clean service’ record condition in Recruitment Rules and its potential impacts on promotions and seniorities.
- In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Karumuliah Khan, it was held that the principle of res judicata applies to writ petitions as well.
- In the case of Reddy Venkatesh Godda v. Deputy Commissioner, it was held that a writ petition can be dismissed if there is a failure to implead necessary parties.
- The court suggests that guidelines should be issued on how to give effect to the stipulation regarding promotion under the LDCE quota.
- Denying promotion under the LDCE quota due to minor penalties is seen as harsh, especially when promotion chances are slim under the 33% promotion quota.
- The court questions why a minor penalty should hinder participation in the selection process for LDCE quota promotion.
- It recommends the Ministry of Home Affairs to review the stipulation and decide on its continuation for LDCE quota promotions.
Decision
- Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5832/2022 covered by guidelines and clarification will have sealed cover opened with result declared within 12 weeks.
- Petition W.P. (C) 6287/2022 allowed and both petitions, including W.P.(C) 5832/2022, disposed.
- Ministry of Home Affairs to issue guidelines for proper implementation of Recruitment Rules regarding ‘clean record’ and implement the same.
Case Title: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH & ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (2024:DHC:4474-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-5832/2022
