Alango Das v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 3683 OF 2021 • Alango Das, S/o Late Praphull Das, aged about 45 years, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2.

Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 3.

Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 4.

Superintendent of Police, Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG) 5.

Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 25/08/2021 1.

The only grievance of Petitioner in the present Writ Petition seems to be his name being left out for being considered for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector.

2.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the persons who were placed below the Petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector have already been considered and got promotion. The name of Petitioner was not included in the eligibility list. Learned Counsel for Petitioner further submits that the ACRs that were provided to Petitioner there was nothing adverse reflected therein, however, subsequently when the representation of Petitioner was rejected by Respondent No.2, he came to know that in his ACR for the year 2020 his gradings are reflected as "?k/x".

3.

Further contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that these gradings "?k/x" in the ACR of Petitioner for the year 2020 are by way of tampering done in the records, as it were not reflected when the Petitioner had originally perused the same in the office of Respondent No.4. Thereafter, the Petitioner has now again made a detailed representation on 28.5.2021 (Annexure P-12) highlighting these aspects to Respondents No.2 to 4 but there has been no further progress on the said representation and thus he prays that the present Writ Petition as of now may be disposed of directing Respondents No.2 to 4 to take a decision on his representation (Annexure P-12) after due verification of records. 4.

Considering the limited relief that Petitioner seeks that of a decision on his appeal, if any, or representation that he has made specifically referring to the alleged tampering in the ACR insofar as the gradings are concerned, let Respondents No.2 to 4 take appropriate decision on the appeal/representation that Petitioner has made on 28.5.2021 (Annexure P-12) after due verification of facts and service records, in accordance with law, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

5.

Withe aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge