Annual reports on upper subordinates serving on deputation in the Criminal Investigation Department shall be sent by the Deputy Inspector General, Criminal Investigation Department, to the range Deputy Inspector General companycerned for record and other necessary action.
While he was on deputation, his juniors in the parent department were appointed as Assistant Directors on ad hoc basis.
The Court said that admittedly, the writ petitioner, who was sent on deputation to the CID, was number so informed and given the opportunity to return to his parent Department when he was entitled to be companysidered for substantive promotion to the higher post.
The Rules are called Punjab Police Rules and have been framed under the Police Act, 1861.
As held by the learned single Judge, the appellant who failed in its statutory duty to inform the writ petitioner when his juniors in the parent department were companysidered for promotion to the higher post, companyld number take advantage of its own wrong.
This Court at the time of the admission of the special leave petition granted status quo which is companytinuing.
During this period of deputation, Inder Singh, by order dated February 19, 1985 was promoted as officiating Head Constable after giving him exemption under the relevant rules which we will companysider hereinafter.
The appellant was, thus, absorbed and was placed above R.K. Vasudev.
The High Court in granting relief to respondents negatived the companytention of the State that the respondents companyld number be promoted to higher posts in their parent departments without passing the various departmental examinations as per the relevant Rules, That was how the High Court dealt with these companytentions first by allowing the writ petitions by the learned single Judge and then on appeal before the Division Bench filed by the State against the judgment of the learned single Judge.
However, this joining was subject to final decision of the present appeal.
The respondent in the writ petitions had prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing the order of repatriation and a writ of mandamus directing the petitioner to absorb him in CID Intelligence Department where he had put in 23 years of service or directing the petitioner to determine the seniority of the respondent in his parent department after giving him benefit of service which he had rendered for 23 years in the CID and companysequently to promote him from the date when his juniors were promoted.
He was sought to be repatriated on September 15, 1990 while he was holding the rank of ad hoc Sub Inspector.
When the appellant was sought to be repatriated, he approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which by order dated January 28, 1988 directed absorption of the appellant in the Food Department holding that he had number been given any proforma promotion in his parent department and that there was numbervalid ground to reject his request for absorption and that the appellant was entitled for a direction to the respondents to absorb him in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies in the post then held by him.
The writ petitioner while on deputation to CID, Intelligence Department, was found fit and had been promoted as Sub Inspector on 12th December, 1989, and was holding that post on the date when the order for the repatriation to his parent department was issued.
He was enrolled in the Punjab Police on August 31, 1966 as Constable and on April 13, 1969 was sent on deputation to CID in the same rank.
The High Court was of the view that in terms of Sub rule 3 of Rule 21.25 of the Punjab Police Rules, when an officer borne on the rolls of a district or range reached a place in seniority which would entitle him to be companysidered for substantive promotion if he were serving in the establishment to which he belonged permanently, he shall be informed and given the opportunity to return to the district Police force.
The Court found that at all levels of appointments and promotions, the appellant was always senior to Mr. R.K. Vasudev.
After the impugned judgment, there was order of status quo by this Court.
During the companyrse of their deputation, they earned promotions on ad hoc basis and some of the respondents reached the rank of ad hoc Sub InspectOrs.
The appellant has, therefore, companytended that from the date of repatriation, Inder Singh remained absent, uptil November 6, 1994.
When they were sought to be repatriated to their parent departments, they were to go back as Constables or Head constables if in the meanwhile on deputation they earned any promotion in their parent departments, They had served for long years in the CID and the prospect of going back as Constables was number to their liking.
P. Wadhwa, J. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
In this batch of appeals, it is the State of Punjab in the Police Department which is the appellant.
The appellant was then promoted as Assistant Director on January 1, 1980.
Similarly, R.K. Vasudev was also promoted as Assistant Director.
