Deciding a civil suit against the denial of promotion to a woman Haryana police sub-inspector in her favour, a local court here has ordered that the plaintiff was not “warned to be careful in future” for lack of integrity but for not showing exemplary conduct as a senior police officer and hence, the court was “of the considered view that she is entitled to promotion”. The court directed that the 53-year-old plaintiff be promoted within two months.
Sub-Inspector Raj Bala, the plaintiff, was awarded punishment of “warned to be careful in future”, for requesting a loan from an accused of an FIR. The warning was issued by then Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Shashank Kumar Sawan, on October 25, 2019, leading to denial of promotion to her. She filed a civil suit and the court, in its September 7 order, directed the competent authority to pass the speaking orders considering her plaint as representation.
But the Gurugram police commissioner rejected her representation on the grounds that an appeal could be made only against the order of dismissal or reduction or stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for the increment and therefore, no appeal was made against the punishment of warning.
Police conduct
Pronouncing the verdict, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anil Kaushik, observed that “the principles of natural justice and fair play have been blatantly violated by the act and conduct of Gurugram police commissioner and the inspector general of police, Rewari Range, who on the one hand, declined her representation terming it as not maintainable in the face of relevant rules and regulations and thereafter, considering her punishment, “warned to be careful in future”, so grave so as to come as a stumbling block in the way of her promotion to the post of inspector”.
Saying that the defendants in the case had put themselves in a position to eat the cake and have it too, Mr. Kaushik, said that the plaintiff’s right had been stifled and she was denied her right to promotion without any cause. “This further shows that the plaintiff has been let remedy less. It is a well-settled principle of jurisprudence that there is no wrong without a remedy,” said the order.
Mr. Kaushik, in his 64-page order, also observed that the Gurugram police commissioner and the IGP, Rewari Range, were not the competent authority to reject the representation of the plaintiff as ordered by the court. It said the competent authority was Director General of Police, Haryana, and “the deciding of the representation by the unauthorised officers rendered them liable for action but this court refrains from going ahead with the same lest it should appear a bit chasing. However, the plaintiff if so advised, shall be at liberty to approach the court in this behalf.”
