Dharambir Singh vs Commissioner Of Police

The applicant retired from Delhi Police as Assistant Sub Inspector. While in service, his case was considered for extension of benefit of 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP), on completion of 30 years of service. Through order dated 11.10.2012, the appointing authority of the applicant informed him that the Departmental Screening Committee has taken the view that the applicant is unfit to be granted the financial upgradation. The said order is challenged in this O.A.

The applicant contends that, except that a minor penalty of censure, that too, on untenable grounds was imposed, there was no other adverse material in his case, and still the MACP benefits were denied to him. It is further pleaded that the respondents did not follow the Standing Order No.A-44 dated 25. 10.2010, which laid down the guidelines, to be followed in this behalf.

The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the O.A. According to them, the applicant was imposed the minor penalty of censure through an order dated 02.12.2010 and taking the same and other relevant factors into account, the Screening Committee found the applicant unfit and accordingly, he was denied the financial upgradation.

We heard Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. B N P Pathak, learned counsel for respondents, at some length.

The MACP Scheme was adopted by the Delhi Police. An employee, on completion of 30 years of service becomes entitled to be considered for 3rd financial upgradation, in case he did not earn promotion in the past 10 years. It is not in dispute that the applicant did not earn promotion after he completed 20 service of service. Accordingly, the Screening Committee considered his case for 3rd MACP. However, it declared him unfit. The impugned order simply says that the denial of financial upgradation was due to „indifferent service record and non-achievement of benchmark‟. Beyond this, there is no other elaboration.

In the counter affidavit, the respondents mentioned that the applicant was imposed a minor penalty of censure and by taking into account, the paragraph 3 of the guidelines, the Screening Committee declared him unfit.

The applicant, no doubt, was imposed the minor punishment of censure through order dated 02.12.2010. Even according to the guidelines contained in Standing Order dated A-44 dated 25.10.2010, a censure would be effective for a period of 6 months. In other words, the punishment awarded against the applicant lost its effectiveness on 01.06.2011.

Assuming that it is to be taken into account in the context of MACP, it needs to be seen as to what exactly the purport of the relevant guidelines is. Paragraph 3 of the guidelines reads:-

"3. Officers who have been awarded any minor punishment in preceding five years on charges of corruption, moral turpitude, etc. consequent upon conducting D.E. proceedings for the award of major punishment in which the charges have been found proved, may not be empanelled."

From this, it becomes clear that the penalty of censure would become a stumbling block for extension of the benefit of MACP, if only it was imposed as a punishment, as a sequel to issuance of major penalty proceedings and on conclusion of disciplinary inquiry. Admittedly, in the instant case, no major penalty charge memo was issued to the applicant, much less the disciplinary inquiry was conducted. Therefore, by itself, the censure would not come in the way of his entitlement for financial upgradation.

Secondly, in paragraph 4 of the guidelines, it was mentioned that the performance of an employee shall be assessed with reference to past 10 years of service by applying 10 points formula. According to this, a censure awarded as a minor penalty in the ordinary course would carry 2 points, whereas the one awarded as a sequel to the major penalty proceedings, would carry 4 points.

The counter affidavit is silent as to the points awarded to the applicant. The disability would dawn upon the applicant if only the adverse points were 10 or more. That is not the case. Thereafter, it emerges that the impugned order, insofar as it relates to the applicant, cannot be sustained in law.

Hence, we allow the O.A. declaring that the applicant is entitled to be extended the 3rd financial upgradation. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, he shall not be entitled to any arrears, but the impact of the MACP benefits shall be reflected in the pension of the applicant, within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.