Promotion of Sub-Inspector of Police to Inspector of Police with allegations of misconduct
Posted on February 22, 2024
It would depend on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case. However, in general, the Supreme Court of India has often emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the police force and ensuring that promotions are based on merit and not tainted by allegations of misconduct.
One such case is Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991 AIR 2010) where the Supreme Court held that promotion should be denied to an officer facing departmental or criminal proceedings, as it would be against public interest and would erode the faith of the public in the efficiency and integrity of the public administration. The court emphasized that the allegations need not be proved conclusively but should be serious and of a grave nature.
Another relevant case is Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, where the Supreme Court held that the promotion of an employee facing disciplinary proceedings can be deferred until the conclusion of the proceedings, depending on the nature and gravity of the charges.
(2003) 6 SCC 123 – State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj: This case (2003) deals with the issue of promotion of a police officer who has faced disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that if the disciplinary proceedings are pending, the officer can be promoted subject to the outcome of the proceedings. However, if the officer is ultimately found guilty, the promotion can be cancelled.
Union of India & Ors. vs. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary: In this case (2012), the Court held that while considering a promotion, the disciplinary proceedings against the officer should be taken into account. If the officer is exonerated or the charges are not serious, the promotion can be granted. However, if the charges are serious and the officer is found guilty, the promotion can be denied or cancelled.
2005 (6) SCC 754 – State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. (2005): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a person with an adverse entry in his confidential character roll may be considered for promotion, but the authority must record reasons for doing so. The adverse entry by itself cannot be a ground for denial of promotion.
(2008) 8 SCC 725 – Dev Dutt & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2008): The Supreme Court held that mere pendency of a disciplinary inquiry cannot be a ground to withhold promotion if the employee is otherwise eligible and suitable for promotion.
Union of India v. Chaturbhuj Singh & Ors. (2001): The Supreme Court held that if an employee is denied promotion due to pendency of a criminal case, the order must specify the reasons and must be based on material on record.
(2008) 3 SCC 512 – K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008): The Supreme Court held that the mere existence of a criminal case against an employee cannot be a ground for denial of promotion, unless the charges are of such a serious nature that they reflect adversely on the integrity of the employee.
(2015) 2 SCC 610 – Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015): The Supreme Court held that if an employee is denied promotion due to pendency of a criminal case, the decision must be based on the nature of charges, the gravity of misconduct, and the impact on the employee’s integrity and efficiency.
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 – Union of India & Ors Vs. Subrata Nath: Courts Ought To Refrain From Interfering With Findings Of Facts In Departmental Inquiries Unless There Are Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court.
These judgments highlight the importance of ensuring that promotions in the police force are not tainted by allegations of misconduct and that the integrity of the force is maintained.
These judgments provide guidance on how to deal with employees with allegations of misconduct in the context of promotions. It’s important to review the specific facts and circumstances of each case before making any decisions.
Article Written by
Pathakota Venkata Mohana Rao B.Com, LL.M
Advocate at High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
Designated Partner at VENSO LAW OFFICES LLP
Office No: +91 967 967 6450
E-mail ID: vensolawofficesllp@gmail.com
www.vensolawoffices.com
