GURPREET SINGH BHULLAR AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 1110 · Decided: 08-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GURPREET SINGH BHULLAR AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 8, 2006 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955-
C Regulation 5(5) and Explanation I and 7(3)-Promotion--Entitlement when 
charge-sheet filed against officer-Held: When charge-sheet is filed against 
an officer, criminal proceedings is deemed to pending against him and he 
would not be entitled to promotion. 
D 
Interpretation of statute-Ambiguity in statute-Held: Court to interpret 
a statute only when the same is ambiguous. 
Aggrieved party--Police officer against whom criminal proceeding is 
pending is promoted-Appeal filed by other officers in the select list not 
considered for promotion-- Maintainability of-Held: Maintainable as they 
E were aggrieved party. 
Respondent No.5 was a police official. A criminal case against him 
was pending in the CBI Court. On 1.7.2000, charge sheet was filed against 
him. The Government of India issued notification dated 9.4.2002 in which 
name of respondent No.5 was included in the select list of 1999 and 2000 
F at Serial No. 3 and I for promotion to JPS cadre with a condition that his 
name has been included in the list provisionally subject to his clearance 
in criminal case. He filed 0.A. in Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) 
challenging the notification. 
CAT allowed the O.A. with a direction that respondent no.5 be given 
G benefit of being placed in select panel without considering the pending 
criminal case and that his promotion would be subject to outcome of result 
of criminal case pending against him. Union of India, unsuccessfully filed 
Writ Petition before High Court for quashing the order of CAT. 
H 
1110 
~-
GURPREET SINGH BHULLAR v. U.0.1. 
1111 
J 
The present appeal is filed by police officials whose names in the A 
select list of 1999-2000 were at serial No.24 and serial No.12. Their 
grievance was that had one vacancy in favour of respondent No.5 was not 
wrongly considered, they could have been well within the zone of 
consideration. 
It was contended on behalf of Union of India that the appellants were B 
not aggrieved parties as they had no locus standi to challenge the decision. 
i" 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court committed the fundamental error by 
misinterpreting the explanation 1 to Regulation 5(5) and Regulation, 7(3) c 
of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. 
Explanation 1 makes it clear that the proceedings shall be treated as 
pending only if a chargesheet has actually been issued to the officer or 
filed in a Court. The language employed in the statute is unambiguous. 
The Explanation nowhere states about charges having been framed by the 
Trial Court. The High Court, erroneously read something to the D 
Explanation, which is not provided by the Regulation. There is no concept 
of charge being framed by the Trial Court in the context of Explanation 
1 of the Regulation. (1113-G; 1115-C-D) 
Prakash Kumar v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409; Nasiruddin v. E 
Sita Ram Agarwal, (2003) 2 SCC 577; Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of 
India, (1992) Supp I SCC 594 and Bairam Kumawat v. Union of India, (2003) 
7 sec 628, referred to. 
2. The interpretation of the statute assigned by the High Court, if 
.,t 
accepted, would negate the intendment of the Legislature and frustrate F 
the statute itself. In fact, there is no ambiguity in the statute, which would 
require interpretation negating the intendment of the Legislature as sought 
to be done by the High Court. (1117-G-H) 
3. It is stated that both the appellants are direct recruit DSP's of G 
1990-91 batch. They have more than eight years of service and were 
..; 
eligible for consideration during the selection committee meeting held on 
, 
25._1.2002 for preparation of select list for the year 1999-2000. In view of 
the categorical stand taken. by the Government of Punjab. in its counter it 
cannot be said that the appellants are not within the zone of consideration 
and that they are not the aggrieved parties. (1119-D, E) 
H 
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty, (1998) 4 SCC 447; 
B 
c 
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998( 7 SCC 273 and 
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) I SCC 590, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1586 of2006. 
From the Final Judgment and Order d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.