Shamsher Singh Sandhu vs Union Of India

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 30347 of 2014)

Shamsher Singh Sandhu .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Union of India and Others ....Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 Leave granted.

2 This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the High Court of

Jammu and Kashmir dated 29 October 2014 in a Letters Patent Appeal 1.

3 The dispute in the present case pertains to the claim of the

appellant for promotion to the rank of Inspector General of Police 2. The

appellant was holding the rank of Deputy Inspector General 3 in the CRPF,

having initially been inducted into the service in 1976. When his turn came Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2020.01.16 16:53:22 IST up for being considered for promotion as an IG, the Annual Medical Reason: 1 LPA No 08/2014 2 IG 3 DIG 2

Examination on 22 June 2011 categorized the appellant as S1H1A1P2E1

(T-24) rendering him unfit for promotion. In the Annual Medical

Examination on 4 January 2012, he was again categorized as

S1H1A1P3E1 (T-12). A Review Medical Board was convened on 16 June

2012 which assigned to the appellant a SHAPE 2 (T-24) categorization.

Again on 13 July 2012, at the behest of the appellant, a Medical Board was

constituted of officers outside the CRPF which on 13 July 2012 assigned to

the appellant a SHAPE 2 (Permanent) categorization. This was followed by

a Medical Board on 26 July 2012 under the directions of the Union Home

Secretary. Eventually, on 27 August 2012 and 31 August 2012, the

appellant was examined at the Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in which he

was assigned the medical categorization of S1H1A1P1 (o024)E1. On 4

January 2013, a Medical Board was constituted at the All India Institute of

Medical Sciences, but the appellant did not present himself for medical

examination. In February 2013, a Medical Board chaired by the ADM

(Medical), with two IG rank 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 Court of

Jammu and Kashmir, which resulted in interim directions in pursuance of

which the appellant was initially examined by a Board of the All India

Institute of Medical Sciences. The report of the Board dated 2 July 2014

was examined by a Committee constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Committee opined that the appellant was in a SHAPE 3 (Permanent)

category with a longstanding case of diabetes and hypertension. It may be 3

noted, at this stage, that during the chequered history of the present case,

the appellant was, on the basis of the report of the Dr Ram Manohar Lohia

Hospital, granted promotion as an IG in September 2012. The appellant

was posted as IG (Operations) with the CRPF in Jammu and Kashmir.

Subsequently, on 3 April 2013, the order of promotion was withdrawn with

immediate effect following which he was reverted to the rank of DIG. The

order of reversion was stayed by the High Court on 9 April 2013, as a result

of which, the appellant continued to work as IG. Both the learned Single

Judge and, in appeal, the Division Bench rejected the plea of the appellant

to substantive promotion to the rank of IG. On 13 November 2014, this

Court, while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition, directed that the

status quo shall be maintained by the parties until further orders. As a

consequence of the interim order passed by this Court, the appellant

continued to work in the rank of IG until his eventual retirement from service

on 31 January 2016.

5 During the pendency of these proceedings, on 8 September 2015,

this Court directed the constitution of a supplementary Departmental

Promotion Committee4 to consider the appellant for promotion to the rank of

Additional DGP, CRPF. A DPC was convened on 21 October 2015, the

result of which has been placed in a sealed cover.

6 Mr P S Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant, assailed the judgment of the High Court by submitting that the

categorization of the appellant by the Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital

ought to have been accepted by the authorities. Learned senior counsel 4 DPC 4

submitted that the appellant was reverted from the rank of IG to that of a

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 him

retiral benefits as an IG rank officer. The second limb of submission is that

the case of the appellant was considered by the DPC in pursuance of the

interim order of this Court and the sealed cover should be directed to 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.

7 Mr Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General, on the other

hand, submitted that the record would indicate that the appellant had been

examined on numerous occasions by the Medical Boards and was not

found to fulfill the benchmark required of being a SHAPE I category officer.

Mr Lekhi submitted that the report which was submitted by the Dr Ram

Manohar Lohia Hospital had to be placed for consideration for appropriate

classification by the Medical Board of CRPF under clause 4.7 of the

Standing Orders absent which the promotion which was granted to the

appellant was contrary to the rules. That apart, it has been urged that

before the High Court, the appellant was examined by a Board of the All

India Institute of Medical Sciences and the report of the Medical Board was

duly considered by a Committee constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs

which came to the conclusion that the appellant was in a SHAPE 3

(Permanent) category. Mr Lekhi further submitted that, at the highest, the

salary which has been paid over to the appellant for the period during which

he worked as IG may not be withdrawn or recovered and there is no 5

question of the retiral dues being disbursed to the appellant on the basis

that he had retired as an IG rank officer. Consequently, it was urged that

there is no question of any further consideration of the case of the appellant

for promotion as Additional DGP.

8 Having heard the rival submissions, the significant aspect of the

case which merits emphasis is that the appellant continued to work,

pursuant to the order of promotion that was granted to him to the rank of IG

until he was reverted to the rank of DIG. The order of reversion was

passed without the issuance of a notice to show cause and without

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 the proceedings came before this Court

upon the dismissal of the Writ Petition as well as the Letters Patent Appeal,

this Court directed the maintenance of status quo. The appellant, as a

result of the interim order passed by this Court, continued to work as an IG

rank officer until the date of his superannuation. He did so for a period of

nearly four years.

9 Having regard to the above factual position, we are of the view that

the ends of justice would require a direction by this Court, in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, that the retiral dues of the

appellant be computed and released on the basis that he has retired from

service in the substantive rank of an IG. However, having perused the

record, particularly the report of the Medical Board which was constituted

finally in pursuance of the directions of the High Court, we are not inclined 6

to issue any further directions for the consideration of the case of the

appellant to the rank of Additional DGP and we are of the view that the

matter must rest there. We have in consequence accepted the second limb

of the submissions urged by Mr Lekhi, the learned ASG. The appellant’s

claim for promotion as Additional DGP is in consequence not accepted.

10 We accordingly dispose of the appeal with a direction that the retiral

dues of the appellant shall be computed and released to him within a period

of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order on the

basis of the position that he retired as an IG on 31 January 2016. The

sealed cover shall, in consequence, be returned to the respondents. The

appellant shall have no further claim for promotion as an Additional DGP.

There shall be no order as to costs.

…………...…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Ajay Rastogi]

New Delhi;

January 14, 2020 7

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).30347/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-10-2014 in LPA No. 8/2014 passed by the High Court of J & K at Jammu)

SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 14-01-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv. Mr. Shirin Khajuria, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv.

Mr. Prakash Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed

reportable judgment. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)