Supreme Court of India

KARNAIL SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: 1994 INSC 363
Decided: 6 September 1994
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYN VENKATACHALA

Holding

The reversion of the appellants to head constable without a proper enquiry is illegal, and they must be deemed to have been promoted on par with their juniors with all consequential benefits.

Summary

The appellants, head constables who had completed intermediate and upper school police training, were temporarily promoted to Sub‑Inspectors and placed on the 'G' list. After completing the upper school course in 1984 they were not placed on the 'E' list and were reverted to head constable, while two junior colleagues were promoted ad hoc. The appellants challenged the reversion, alleging denial of promotion without an enquiry despite an alleged adverse service record. The Supreme Court held that no enquiry was conducted, no findings were recorded, and the appellants were not given an opportunity to defend themselves, rendering the reversion illegal. Consequently, the Court declared the appellants to have been promoted on par with their juniors from the date of the junior promotions, with all consequential benefits, and allowed the appeals.

Issues considered

When does the denial of promotion without an enquiry violate principles of natural justice?
Whether the appellants are entitled to promotion on the same basis as junior colleagues despite alleged adverse service records.
Whether the State's action of reverting the appellants to head constable is legally valid.

Subjects

promotionreversionpolice service lawbad service recordconfidential reportnatural justiceseniorityad hoc promotion

Judgment

A                              KARNAIL SINGH
                                        v.
                    THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

                             SEPTEMBER 6, 1994

B            [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

          Service Law-Head Constables-Promotion-Reversion--Promotion of
    juniors-Legality of.

C         The appellant-bead constables un_derwent intermediate course of
    training and were put in 'G' list and promoted as Sub- Inspectors. In 1984
    they were selected for training of Upper S~bool Course. However, after
    completion of training, they were not included in 'E' list and instead of
    being promoted they were reverted as Head Constables while their juniors
D   were promoted on ad hoc basis. 'Ibey filed writ petitions in the High Court
    which were dismissed.

         In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the State, that
    the appellants were denied promotion due to bad service record and
    adverse Confidential Report.
E
         Allowing the appeals, this Court

          HELD : 1. When the appellants have been standing in the same
    position as two other Head Constables and were senior to them necessarily
    they should also get the same treatment, but that was not meted out. Even
F   assuming that they had adverse remarks, admittedly no equiry was made,
    no findings were given after conducting an enquiry and after giving an
    opportunity to the appellant:J. Therefore, their reversion as Head-Con-
    stables is clearly illegal. Though they have been promoted subsequently
    they must be deemed to have been promoted on par with juniors with all
G   the consequential benefits. [197-G-H; 198-A]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 297-98
    of 1987.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.86 of the Punjab and
H Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 2719 & 2676of1986.
                                        196
                       KARNAILSINGHv. STAIB                           197

     S.K. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga and Tanuj Bagga Advs. for the Appellant        A

      G.K. Bansal and R.Yadav for the Respondents.

     The following Order of the Court delivered by :

       Both the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since same      B
point is involved for adjudication. These appeals by Special Leave arise
from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 2636/86 dated August 13, 1986 and Civil
Writ Petition No. 2719/86 of the Judgment. Admittedly the appellants were
holding substantive posts as head-constables. They were sent to undergo      C
intermediate course of training in the year 1976 and they were put in the
'G' List and they were temporary promoted as officiating Sub-Inspectors
on May 1, 1981. Thereafter on April 1, 1994 they were selected for
undergoing training of upper school course at police training college,
Phillaue in Distt. Jullundur. After completion of the training instead of
promoting them as inspectors in the meantime they were reverted as           D·
head-constables. They filed writ petitions as stated earlier and the High
Court dismissed the writ petitions.

       It is seen from the proceedings Annexure - P at page the writ
petitions.                                                                   E
            1
      It is seen from the proceedings Annexure-P at page 32 of the Paper
Book that the appellants were not promoted as Inspectors. Though the
appellants have completed the upper school co~irse ending with the ter
August, 1984 they have been ignored and not includoo on the E List due
to their chequerred service record. Mota Singh and Kamail Singh though F
have been categorised in that category, in paragraph 4 of the same order
they have been promoted on ad hoc basis w.e.f. October 4, 1984. Admit-
tedly Mota singh, head constable No.80/119 and Kamail Singh head con-
stable 82/22 are juniors to the appellants in the seniority mentioned in the
order. When the appellants have been standing in the same position as G
Mota Singh and Karnail Singh and seniors to them necessarily they should
also get the same treatment. Unfortunately that was meted out: It is sought
to be contended on behalf of the State that due to bad record and adverse
confidential report, they have not been given the promotion. Even assum-
ing that they had adverse remarks, admittedly no enquiry was made, no
findings were given after conducting an enquiry and after giving an oppor- H
                         SUPREME CO.URT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A timity to the appellants. Therefore, the reversion of them as head-con-
    stables is clearly illegal. Though they have been promoted subsequently in
    1987-88 respectively, they must be deemed to have been promoted on par
    with juniors w.e.f. October 8, 1984. The appellants are accordingly enti~ed
    to the above declaration and the consequential benefits. The appeals. arc
    allowed and writ issued. No· costs.                      ·
B
    T.N.A.                                                     Appeal allowed

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "promotion"Sign in to search