Bhagwat Jatav vs State Of M.P. & Ors.

The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs:-

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent department on 25.05.2012 on the post of Constable. He has served with the department for a long tenure of about 14 years in which he has received 64 awards. His service career remained unblemished until the passing of the order dated 23.04.2026 (Annexure P/6), whereby a penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same in an appeal, in which the Appellate Authority passed order dated 19.05.2026 thereby reducing the punishment to 'Censure'.

The case of the petitioner is that in terms of the recruitment Rules, the order of 'Censure' cannot be treated as a penalty, thus it will have no effect on the consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion.

The further case of the petitioner is that a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened for considering the cases of Constables for promotion to the post of Officiating Head Constables. As per GOP No. 148/2021 dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure P/13), the criteria for such promotion is that the candidate must have, out of the ACR gradings of last five years, at least three gradings in the 'Good' category, and out of the total five ACRs, none should be graded as 'Average' or 'Adverse'. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has fulfilled the criteria of having at least three ACR gradings in the 'Good' category. However, for the year 2024-25, although the Initiating Authority and Reviewing Authority had awarded a 'Good' grading in the petitioner's ACR, the Accepting Authority downgraded the same to 'Average'.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accepting authority has arbitrarily reduced this grading to average without assigning any reason and the petitioner has not been communicated this average ACR. Thus, based on an un-communicated ACR, the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion on the post of officiating Head Constable. He submits that this action of the respondents is contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725. The learned counsel further submits that this Court has also considering a similar cases and has passed orders dated 05.05.2026 & 24.09.2024 in WP No.8518/2013 (Lakhanlal Koli vs. State of MP & Ors.) & W.P. No. 30909/2023 (Mrs. Veena Jain vs. State of MP & Ors.) . Thus, he submits that considering the fact that the petitioner has been denied benefit of promotion based on uncommonicated ACR gradings, the action of the respondents is not sustainable. Considering that his juniors have been promoted, the case of the petitioner also deserves to be considered for promotion on the post of officiating Head Constable.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that, since the petitioner has been awarded a penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 23.04.2026, the effect of the said punishment would remain operative for a period of one year. Even though the said punishment was subsequently reduced to censure but even this reduced penalty of censure will remain in force for a period of one year. He also submitted that as the departmental proceedings against the petitioner culminated in the imposition of punishment, therefore, he was not entitled to be considered for promotion during the currency of the penalty. As such, the petitioner has correctly been denied the benefit of promotion.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

As it appears from the facts of the case, the petitioner has been denied promotion on two counts: firstly, on account of the currency of the penalty, inasmuch as the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon him; and secondly, on account of the fact that his ACR for the last year, i.e., 2024-25, was graded as 'Average'. Thus, in view of the Clause V Rule 5 of GOP No. 148/2021, he has been ousted from the category of eligible candidates for promotion.

As far as the issue of currency of penalty is concerned, in the considered view of this Court the respondents have to reconsider this aspect, for the reason that the M.P. Police Regulations provides for kinds of punishment in regulation no. 214. Interestingly, in this regulation the censure is not provided as a punishment. The regulation no. 215 provides additional punishment for officers up to the rank of Inspector, which are fine, removal from any office of distinction and supersession. Then regulation no. 216 further provides for punishment of Head Constables and Constables, which are confinement to quarters, punishment drill and extra guard duty. Thereafter, regulation no. 217 provides additional kinds of punishment for constables only, which are deprivation or withholding of increments, extra fatigue duty. As such, in the entire police regulation there is no provision providing for the punishment of censure.

Now, the Police Regulations, in regulation no. 226 provides for the manner of imposing penalty for any particular offence. In clause (vii) of regulation no. 226 it is provided that in cases of minor offences against discipline by constables/head constables, firstly they should be dealt with by giving 'Warning', if this proves ineffective then minor punishment should be awarded.

The discussion of kinds of penalty in above paragraph would show that in police regulation the term censure is not prescribed as one of the penalty, instead in regulation 226 (vii) warning word has been used as opposed to penalty, which goes to show that warning is not treated as penalty. As such, there is a big question mark on the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that as the petitioner has been given a Censure, thus currency of penalty will work against him for a year. In the considered view of this court in absence of any prescription in the M.P. Police Regulation of the 'Censure' (Nindaa) as penalty, the same will not come in the way of the petitioner for consideration of his case for promotion.

As far as the question of ACR is concerned, the ACR based on which he has been ousted from consideration was never communicated to him. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) has held in unequivocal terms that every ACR of an employee which is below the best available grading if affects the prospects of the person concern adversely in the matter of his promotion, then the same is required to be communicated. The respondents are not in a position to dispute this fact that the said ACR was never communicated to the petitioner.

However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while preparing for filing of the present petition, the petitioner came to know about his gradings and has obtained the ACRs under Right to Information. He also informs that the petitioner has also submitted a representation against the un-communicated ACR before the Superintendent of Police, District Agar Malwa.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.