Mere Criminal case pendency can't be ground for denying promotion: Allahabad High Court directs State to promote police inspector

The Allahabad High Court while directing the Uttar Pradesh Government to grant promotion to a police inspector recently held that since the petitioner had been permitted to continue his service and his service record was excellent , therefore, "mere pendency of a criminal case could not be a ground for denying him the promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police".

The bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari was hearing a writ petition moved by a police inspector alleging that though his name had been considered for the promotion to the post of Deputy SP in 2018, it was kept in a sealed cover envelope since then.

The court referred to its judgment in Neeraj Kumar Pandey vs. The State of U.P. and 5 others (2022) in which facts similar to the instant case were there.

In the said judgment, after the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting, the name of petitioner was kept in a sealed cover envelope. Court had considered the fact that even after the pendency of criminal proceeding, the petitioner had continued in service. Considering this fact, the court had directed the State to open the envelope to grant promotion.

In view of the same, regarding the present matter, court observed that it was on a better footing than the case of Neeraj Kumar Pandey. "Undisputedly, even after initiation of criminal proceeding, petitioner was granted promotion on the post of Inspector on 14.09.2006 upon which he is still working without any misuse of the post. Further, petitioner was granted excellent entries for last 10 years," Court pointed out.

Therefore, stating that the fact that the subsequent service record of the petitioner had been found excellent, unblemished, without any punishment should have been an additional ground to grant him the promotion, court allowed the instant writ petition.

Consequently, court set aside the order of the Additional Chief Secretary Home by which petitioner's name had been kept in sealed cover and ordered the State government to grant promotion to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

Case Facts

The petitioner was appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Civil Police Department in the year 1990, and a chargesheet was submitted against him in the year 1999. Thereafter, in 2006, he was promoted to the post of Inspector out of tur. In 2018, the meeting DPC was held and petitioner's name was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, however, due to pendency of criminal proceeding, his name was kept in a sealed cover envelop and juniors to petitioner were granted promotion.

The facts of the case also included that several excellent entries were given to the petitioner in the last ten years of his service as a police inspector coupled with the fact that no punishment, either minor or major was awarded to the petitioner and he never misused his post in any way.

Case Title: Umesh Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others