Supreme Court of India
SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS on 14 January 2020
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
A
SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2020)
BJANUARY 14, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUDAND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law – Promotion to the rank of Inspector General ofPolice – Claim of – The order of promotion was granted to theCappellant to the rank of IG until he was reverted to the rank of DIG– The order of reversion was stayed by the High Court – Thereafter,both Single Judge and, in appeal, the Division Bench of the HighCourt rejected the plea of the appellant to substantive promotion tothe rank of IG – The Supreme Court directed maintenance of statusDquo – The appellant continued to work as an IG rank officer untilthe date of his superannuation – The appellant sought retiral benefitsas an IG rank officer and also sought liberty to pursue his remediesfor promotion to the post of Additional DGP – Held: In exercise ofjurisdiction u/Art. 142, the retiral dues of the appellant be computedand released on the basis that he has retired from service in theEsubstantive rank of an IG – However, having perused the record,particularly the report of the Medical Board which was constitutedfinally in pursuance of the directions of the High Court, no furtherdirections for the consideration of the case of appellant to the rankof Additional DGP to be issued – The appellant’s claim for promotionFas Additional DGP is in consequence not accepted.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant continued to work, pursuant tothe order of promotion that was granted to him to the rank of IGuntil he was reverted to the rank of DIG. The order of reversionGwas passed without the issuance of a notice to show cause andwithout furnishing any opportunity of being heard to the appellant.During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court,the order of reversion was stayed. Then again, when theproceedings came before this Court upon the dismissal of theH
Writ Petition as well as the Letters Patent Appeal, this Courtdirected the maintenance of status quo. The appellant, as a resultof the interim order passed by this Court, continued to work asan IG rank officer until the date of his superannuation. He did sofor a period of nearly four years. [Para 8][1028-E-G]
2. Having regard to the above factual position, this Courtis of the view that the ends of justice would require a direction bythis Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of theConstitution, that the retiral dues of the appellant be computedand released on the basis that he has retired from service in thesubstantive rank of an IG. However, having perused the record,particularly the report of the Medical Board which was constitutedfinally in pursuance of the directions of the High Court, this Courtis not inclined to issue any further directions for the considerationof the case of the appellant to the rank of Additional DGP and thisCourt is of the view that the matter must rest there. Theappellant’s claim for promotion as Additional DGP is inconsequence not accepted. [Para 9][1028-G-H; 1029-A-B]
3. Direction that the retiral dues of the appellant shall becomputed and released to him within a period of two months fromthe date of receipt of a certified copy of this order on the basis ofthe position that he retired as an IG on 31 January 2016. Thesealed cover shall, in consequence, be returned to therespondents. The appellant shall have no further claim forpromotion as an Additional DGP. [Para 10][1029-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 266 of2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2014 of the High Courtof Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in L.P.A. No. 08 of 2014.
P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prerna Mehta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, Anmol Chandan, T.A. Khan, Shirin Khajuria,B.V. Balaram Das, Prakash Kumar Sinha, Rajeev Singh, Advs. for theRespondents.
A
BC
D
E
F
G
1026SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered byDR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2 This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the High CourtBof Jammu and Kashmir dated 29 October 2014 in a Letters PatentAppeal[1].
3. The dispute in the present case pertains to the claim of theappellant for promotion to the rank of Inspector General of Police[2]. Theappellant was holding the rank of Deputy Inspector General[3] in the CRPF,Chaving initially been inducted into the service in 1976. When his turncame up for being considered for promotion as an IG, the Annual MedicalExamination on 22 June 2011 categorized the appellant as S1H1A1P2E1(T-24) rendering him unfit for promotion. In the Annual MedicalExamination on 4 January 2012, he was again categorized asS1H1A1P3E1 (T-12). A Review Medical Board was convened on 16DJune 2012 which assigned to the appellant a SHAPE 2 (T-24)categorization. Again on 13 July 2012, at the behest of the appellant, aMedical Board was constituted of officers outside the CRPF which on13 July 2012 assigned to the appellant a SHAPE 2 (Permanent)categorization. This was followed by a Medical Board on 26 July 2012Eunder the directions of the Union Home Secretary. Eventually, on 27August 2012 and 31 August 2012, the appellant was examined at the DrRam Manohar Lohia Hospital in which he was assigned the medicalcategorization of S1H1A1P1 (o024)E1. On 4 January 2013, a MedicalBoard was constituted at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, butthe appellant did not present himself for medical examination. In FebruaryF2013, a Medical Board chaired by the ADM (Medical), with two IGrank officers in the Medical Division of other Forces, was constituted,which reported the appellant to be in the SHAPE 2 (Permanent) category.
4. The appellant had instituted proceedings before the High Courtof Jammu and Kashmir, which resulted in interim directions in pursuanceGof which the appellant was initially examined by a Board of the All IndiaInstitute of Medical Sciences. The report of the Board dated 2 July 2014was examined by a Committee constituted by the Ministry of Home 1 LPA No 08/20142 IGH3 DIG
Affairs. The Committee opined that the appellant was in a SHAPE 3(Permanent) category with a longstanding case of diabetes andhypertension. It may be noted, at this stage, that during the chequeredhistory of the present case, the appellant was, on the basis of the reportof the Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, granted promotion as an IG inSeptember 2012. The appellant was posted as IG (Operations) with theCRPF in Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequently, on 3 April 2013, the orderof promotion was withdrawn with immediate effect following which hewas reverted to the rank of DIG. The order of reversion was stayed bythe High Court on 9 April 2013, as a result of which, the appellantcontinued to work as IG. Both the learned Single Judge and, in appeal,the Division Bench rejected the plea of the appellant to substantivepromotion to the rank of IG. On 13 November 2014, this Court, whileissuing notice on the Special Leave Petition, directed that the status quoshall be maintained by the parties until further orders. As a consequenceof the interim order passed by this Court, the appellant continued towork in the rank of IG until his eventual retirement from service on 31January 2016.
5. During the pendency of these proceedings, on 8 September2015, this Court directed the constitution of a supplementaryDepartmental Promotion Committee[4] to consider the appellant forpromotion to the rank of Additional DGP, CRPF. A DPC was convenedon 21 October 2015, the result of which has been placed in a sealedcover.
6. Mr P S Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellant, assailed the judgment of the High Court by submitting thatthe categorization of the appellant by the Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospitalought to have been accepted by the authorities. Learned senior counselsubmitted that the appellant was reverted from the rank of IG to that ofa DIG without a notice to show cause and an opportunity of being heard.Mr Patwalia urged that the appellant had an outstanding record as an IG(Operations) in Jammu and Kashmir and it would be unfair to deny himretiral benefits as an IG rank officer. The second limb of submission isthat the case of the appellant was considered by the DPC in pursuanceof the interim order of this Court and the sealed cover should be directedto be opened, with liberty to the appellant, in the event that he is aggrieved,to pursue his remedies for promotion to the post of Additional DGP.
4 DPC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
A7. Mr Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General, on theother hand, submitted that the record would indicate that the appellanthad been examined on numerous occasions by the Medical Boards andwas not found to fulfill the benchmark required of being a SHAPE Icategory officer. Mr Lekhi submitted that the report which was submittedby the Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital had to be placed for considerationBfor appropriate classification by the Medical Board of CRPF under clause4.7 of the Standing Orders absent which the promotion which was grantedto the appellant was contrary to the rules. That apart, it has been urgedthat before the High Court, the appellant was examined by a Board ofthe All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the report of the MedicalCBoard was duly considered by a Committee constituted by the Ministryof Home Affairs which came to the conclusion that the appellant was ina SHAPE 3 (Permanent) category. Mr Lekhi further submitted that, atthe highest, the salary which has been paid over to the appellant for theperiod during which he worked as IG may not be withdrawn or recoveredand there is no question of the retiral dues being disbursed to the appellantDon the basis that he had retired as an IG rank officer. Consequently, itwas urged that there is no question of any further consideration of thecase of the appellant for promotion as Additional DGP.
8. Having heard the rival submissions, the significant aspect ofthe case which merits emphasis is that the appellant continued to work,Epursuant to the order of promotion that was granted to him to the rank ofIG until he was reverted to the rank of DIG. The order of reversion waspassed without the issuance of a notice to show cause and withoutfurnishing any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. During thependency of the proceedings before the High Court, the order of reversionFwas stayed. Then again, when the proceedings came before this Courtupon the dismissal of the Writ Petition as well as the Letters PatentAppeal, this Court directed the maintenance of status quo. The appellant,as a result of the interim order passed by this Court, continued to workas an IG rank officer until the date of his superannuation. He did so fora period of nearly four years.G
9. Having regard to the above factual position, we are of the viewthat the ends of justice would require a direction by this Court, in exerciseof its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, that the retiraldues of the appellant be computed and released on the basis that he hasretired from service in the substantive rank of an IG. However, havingH
perused the record, particularly the report of the Medical Board whichwas constituted finally in pursuance of the directions of the High Court,we are not inclined to issue any further directions for the considerationof the case of the appellant to the rank of Additional DGP and we are ofthe view that the matter must rest there. We have in consequenceaccepted the second limb of the submissions urged by Mr Lekhi, thelearned ASG. The appellant’s claim for promotion as Additional DGP isin consequence not accepted.
10. We accordingly dispose of the appeal with a direction that theretiral dues of the appellant shall be computed and released to him withina period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy ofthis order on the basis of the position that he retired as an IG on 31January 2016. The sealed cover shall, in consequence, be returned tothe respondents. The appellant shall have no further claim for promotionas an Additional DGP. There shall be no order as to costs.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal disposed of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H