Respected Sir/Madam, I requested the respectable/intellectual Advocates please afford your valuable time and clarify my doubts on the following points. I have enlisted as Sub-Inspector in the year 1995, so far i have completed 20 yrs service in this post. I want information on following points: 1. Are their any clear G.O's/Supreme Court Judgments in respect of SCs/STs employees in Police Department i.e., a punishment is no bar for promotion. 2. What is the time limit to complete an oral enquiry (OE) in Police Department, if they did not complete with in the time what should i do, whom should i approach (Except police), in my case my officers have taken (10) yrs time to complete my OE and finally they awarded a punishment without any evidance, and kept a side the judgment of Hon'ble court, please advice me in this regard.
1. you have not yet punished, because oral enquiry is still pending.
2. minor punishment shall not be treated as punishment under police regulation.
3. it is held by the supreme court that even stoppage of increment for two years could be considered only as a minor punishment.
4. you should approach to the High Court and file mandmus writ and get direction from the court for speedy proceeding of your case.
No. 1/9/69-Estt. (SCT)
Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
Dated 26th March, 1970
Subject :- Concessions to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in posts filled by promotion – Class I Services / posts.
The question of increasing the representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees in
Class I Services/posts under the Government of India has been under the consideration for some time past. In this Ministry’s O.M. No.1/12/67-Estt. (C), dated 11th July, 1968, certain concession have been provided to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, inter alia, in the matter of promotion by selection to the lowest rung or Category in Class I. It has now been decided that the following concessions and facilities will be provided to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes officers for their promotions within Class I also.
2. In promotions by selection to posts within Class I, which carry an ultimate salary of Rs. 2,000 per month, or less the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers, who are senior enough in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be within the number of vacancies for which the Select list has to be drawn up, would be included in that list provided they are not considered unfit for promotion: Their position in the Select list would, however, be the same as assigned to them by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of their record or service: They would not be given, for this purpose, one grading higher than the grading otherwise assignable to them on the basis of their record of service.
3. In order to improve the chances of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers for selection to the higher categories of posts in Class I, it has further been decided that:
(i) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers in Class I Services/posts should be provided with more opportunities for institutional training and for attending seminars/Symposia/conferences. Advantage
could in this connection be taken of the training facilities available at the National Academy of Administration Mussoorie, National Police Academy, Mount Abu, Indian Institute of Public
Administration, New Delhi, the Administrative Staff College, Hyderabad, etc.; and
(ii) It should be the special responsibility of the immediate superior officers of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers in Class I to give advice and guidance to the latter to improve the quality of their work.
Ministries/Departments under whom Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Class I officers might be serving should ensure that these decisions are implemented with expedition, Ministries/Departments (or the Heads of Departments) under whom such officers might be serving may specially watch the progress of these officers so that all appropriate steps are taken, wherever necessary, to improve the efficiency of these officers for the purpose of their selection to higher posts.
4. The orders contained in paragraph 2 above take effect from the date of issue except in respect of selections already made prior to the issue of these orders.
5. Ministry of Finance etc., are requested to bring the above decisions to the notice of all concerned.
6. In so far as persons serving in offices under the Comptroller and Auditor General of India are concerned, separate orders will issue in due course.
case law :
The Secretary To Government vs R.Murugesan, it is held by the madras high court that police officer r murugesan could not be denied promotion because he has been facing minor punishment and enquiry is still pending before respective authority.
he Supreme Court in the matter of National Federation of SBI & Ors. V/s. Union of India (1995 AIR 1457) considered the issue whether concession as per O.M. No. 1/9/69-Estt (SCT) dated 26.3.1970 tantamounts to reservation and has held that in the matter of promotion by selection to the posts within Class I, which carry an ultimate salary of Rs. 2250 (Pre-revised), there is no reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes(SCs) / Scheduled Tribes (STs) but they are entitled to the concession contained in para 2 of the OM dated 26.3.1970 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The concession is that those SC/ST officers who are senior enough in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be within the number of vacancies for which the select list is being drawn up will be included in the select list provided they are not considered unfit for promotion.
The Supreme Court has further held that the said candidates would not be entitled, for the purpose of selection one grading higher than the grading otherwise assigned to them on the basis of their record of service. The O.M. dated 26.3.1970 also contains the same instructions that they would not be given, for this purpose, one grading higher than the grading otherwise assigned to them as per their record of service.
The extant guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committee provide that the Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) enjoy full discretion to devise their own methods of procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them. The DPCs should make their own assessment on the basis of the entries in the Confidential Reports(CRs) now Annual Performance Appraisal Reports(APARs) because sometimes the overall gradings in a Confidential Report may be inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or attributes. The DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the performance of each candidate separately but by adopting some stands/yardstick/norms. The procedure should not be vitiated on grounds of bias, Mala-fide or arbitrariness. As per latest instructions, the DPC is required to grade the officers as ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ only, after determining the merit of those being assessed for promotion.
1) as per supreme court judgement you would be included in select list considered for promotion provided you are not found unfit for promotion
2) The Supreme Court
has given clear rulings to that effect that a disciplinary proceedings is not a criminal
trial and that the standard of proof required in a disciplinary inquiry is that of
preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the
proof required in a criminal trial. (Union of India vs. Sardar Bahadur, 1972 SLR SC
355; State of A.P. vs. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723 and Nand Kishore Prasad
vs. State of Bihar, 1978(2) SLR SC 46)
3) Thus, material found not sufficient for proof in a criminal trial can be held
sufficient in a departmental proceeding, .and consequently a fact which is not proved
in a criminal trial may be held proved in departmental proceedings.
The departmental authorities, if the inquiry is properly held, are the sole
judge of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be
based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be
permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under
Article 226 of the constitution. (State of AP vs S. Sreerama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723)
1. Punishment is a definitive bar to the promotion of an employee but it depends on the punishment awarded and the nature of misconduct for which the punishment is awarded.
2. There is no time limit to completion of inquiry. However, it should be completed without any delay.
3. If the enquiry has culminated in you being found guilty and is not based on cogent evidence you may challenge the findings of the enquiry committee in the court which can set it aside.
