S.C. Verma, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary to Government, Home Department, the Inspector General of Police-cum-Director General of Police. Uttar Pradesh. the Inspector General of Police. U. P. Police, Head Quarter, Allahabad, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range, Lucknow and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Range. Gorakhpur, challenging the order of U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 3.6.1986 by which the remark entry against the Opposite Party No. 1 in List II of 1980 was quashed with retrospective effect and the order cancelling the name of the Opposite Party No. 1 from the List II of 1980 was also quashed with retrospective effect. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal had directed the department to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for promotion from the date the candidate at Sl. No. 43 of List II of 1980 was promoted as Inspector and to pay the salary and allowances to which he would become entitled.
2. The opposite party No. 1 was a confirmed Sub-Inspector of Police. The Opposite Party No. 1 was awarded a misconduct entry in the year 1977 but it was alleged that the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik) wrongly set aside the entry and recommended his case for consideration in the list of Sub-Inspectors approved for officiating ad hoc promotion to the post of Inspector and to be placed in List II. A revision was filed against the order quashing the misconduct entry before the Inspector General of Police on 17.10.1978. The opposite party No. 1 was called for interview by the Selection Committee on 10.10.1979. It came to the notice of the Selection Committee that a case under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and two departmental actions under Para 478A of the Police Regulations were pending against the Opposite party No. 1. The Selection Committee placed the opposite party No. 1 in the Select List of candidates at Sl. No. 42 and in the remark column there was an entry 'Subject to Clearance in enquiry'.
3. The opposite party No. 1 filed Claim Petition No. 333/F/V/83 as the opposite party No. 1 was not promoted despite the fact that he was exonerated in the case under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. The opposite party No. 1 has further alleged in the claim petition that according to the Government Order, no departmental enquiry was pending against him and there were only preliminary enquiries, hence the promotion of the opposite party No. 1 could not be withheld. During the pendency of the aforesaid claim petition, the name of the opposite party No. 1 was removed from the List-II prepared in the year 1980, hence the opposite party No. 1 filed another Claim Petition No. 189 (F)/V/1984 challenging the order cancelling the name from the List-II on the ground that in view of the Government Orders, the entry in the remark column in List-II was illegal and the authorities had no jurisdiction to delete the name.
4. Both the claim petitions were contested by the present petitioners and it was alleged that the opposite party No. 1 was conditionally approved subject to the result of the enquiry and acquittal in the case under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. It was further contended that since the opposite party No. 1 was awarded misconduct entry in the years 1977, 1980 and 1982. the Selection Committee rightly did not approve his promotion and ultimately his name was removed from the Llst-II.
5. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal took the view that at the time of declaring the List-II. the Selection Committee or the Deputy Inspector General of Police violated the Government Orders by making entry in the remark column 'subject to clearance in enquiry'. The Tribunal held that the department has not pleaded specific formal departmental enquiry at the time of declaration of List-II. One case under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and two departmental actions under Para 478A of the Police Regulations were pending against the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal further held that there was no evidence or pleading that at the time of declaration of List-II of 1980, any formal departmental enquiry was pending. In fact the two preliminary enquiries which were pending would not, in view of the Government Orders, prohibit the promotion of respondent No. 1 to the post of Inspector. The department has erred in law in not complying the provisions of Para 439 of the Police Regulations and without giving promotion to opposite party No. 1, they could not have removed the name of the opposite party No. 1 from the approved List-II.
6. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the U. P. Public Services Tribunal committed manifest error of law in holding that there was no material that any specific departmental enquiry was pending at the time of declaration of List-II of 1980. The Tribunal further erred in holding that the departmental actions under Para 478A of the Police Regulations were only in the nature of preliminary enquiries and the Government Orders in this regard do not prohibit for promoting the petitioner after he was selected and placed in the approved Llst-II. The petitioners have further alleged that by mere placement of respondent No. 1's name in the select list of the approved Llst-II no legal right accrued in his favour for promotion and his name could be deleted, if he was not found suitable in view of the adverse material against him.
7. The main question which arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether the departmental actions under Para 478A of the Police Regulations were in the nature of preliminary enquiries or departmental enquiries which could enable the department to withhold the promotion of the opposite party No. 1 in view of punishment in the departmental actions. The relevant portion of Paras 478 and 478A of the U. P. Police Regulations are quoted below :
Punishment :
'47ft All Police Officers appointed under Section 2 of the Police Act are liable to the following departmental punishments :
(a) dismissal or removal from the force as defined in Para 481 ;
(b) reduction as defined in Para 482 ;
(ba) withholding of promotion ;
(bb) withholding of increments including stoppage at an efficiencybar;
(bc) misconduct entry in the character roll (U. P. Gazette, dated 6th April, 1968)'.
X X X '478A. The punishment noted at (a) and (b) in Para 478 may be awarded only after departmental proceedings, vide Paras 490 to 494. Orders concerning (ba) may also be passed under Chapter XXX and those concerning (bb) may be passed as provided for in Para 463 or Para 482A as the case may be. The punishment noted at (bc) may be awarded after giving an opportunity to the officer concerned to show cause why a misconduct entry as may be proposed should not be made in his character roll. The punishment noted at (bc) may also be awarded when departmental proceedings, vide, Paras 490 to 494 are taken initially with a view to awarding one of the punishment noted at (a), (b), (ba) and (bb) and the punishing authority ultimately considers it sufficient to award only former as a less severe punishment (U. P. Gazette, dated 6th April, 1968)'.
8. As provided under Para 478A, the punishment of misconduct entry in the character roll could be awarded after giving an opportunity to the officer concerned to show cause. The punishment of award of misconduct entry may also be awarded when departmental proceedings in accordance with the Paras 490 to 494 are taken with a view to awarding one of the major punishments noted at Para 478, (a), (b), (ba) and (bb) and the punishing authority ultimately considers it sufficient to award only former as a less severe punishment, i.e., misconduct entry.
9. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it cannot be held that the two departmental actions under Regulation 478A of the Police Regulations, which were admittedly pending at the time when the respondent No. 1's name was placed in List-II were only in the nature of preliminary enquiries. The misconduct entry of 1980 and 1982 have been awarded after conduct of fullfledged departmental proceedings which were pending at the time when the case of the. respondent No. 1 was considered for selection in the List-II.
10. In our view, the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, was not correct in holding that even though the above departmental proceedings which were pending under Para 478A of the U. P. Police Regulations were not departmental proceedings and they were mere preliminary enquiries. The Tribunal has also erred in holding that as there was no departmental proceedings pending, the entry in remark column 'Subject to clearance in the enquiry' was not correct. The case of respondent No. 1 was considered by the Selection Committee on the basis of available material and he was approved for being placed in List-II which was subject to clearance in the cases under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and two departmental proceedings under Para 478A of the Police Regulations. The respondent No. 1 was acquitted in the case under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act but misconduct entry in the years 1980 and 1982 were awarded to the opposite party No. I which were placed on record at the time when his case came for consideration for being given promotion. The department did not commit any error of law in not promoting the opposite party No. 1 in view of adverse material.
11. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal, committed manifest error of law in holding that the pendency of the departmental actions cannot be ground for withholding the promotion of the opposite party No, 1 and by making remark entry in List-II of 1980 against the opposite party No. 1. the Deputy Inspector General of Police violated the directions issued by the Government. The opposite party No. 1 was subject to hostile discrimination and as such, the entry in the remark column shall not be liable to-be taken into account. The Tribunal was also not correct in holding that the name of respondent No. 1 could not be removed from the approved list without giving him the promotion and the cancellation of the name of opposite party No. 1 from the approved list was contrary to the guidelines contained in Para 439 of the U. P. Police Regulations.
12. We may indicate that the List-II is prepared of the approved selected Sub-Inspectors in accordance with the provisions of Para 436 of the U. P. Police Regulations and the Government Orders for ad hoc officiating promotion on the post of Inspectors. The placement of the name in the select List-II does not give any substantive legal right to an incumbent for promotion. The List-I is prepared of the selected candidates for appointment on the substantive vacancies, whereas the selected candidates under List-II are to be appointed on ad hoc officiating basis on temporary vacancies on the post of Inspectors. The deletion of the name from List-I is only after complying the provisions of Para 439 of the U. P. Police Regulations and the same would not be required for List-II. The name of opposite party No. 1 was only approved for being placed in the Select List subject to clearance in the departmental enquiry. The opposite party No. 1 was not exonerated in the departmental enquiry, on the other hand he was awarded adverse entry and as such he was not given any promotion and his name has been removed from the Select List-II of 1980 for promotion.
13. In the case of N. M. Siddiqui v. Union of India, 1978 SCC (L and S) 349, it has been held :
'Having given a close consideration to these submissions, we see no ground for interfering with the judgment of the High Court. In the first place, the mere circumstances that the appellant was put on a panel for promotion does not mean that he would have been automatically promoted to the higher post. Being empanelled for promotion confers upon the person concerned the limited right of being considered for promotion, which is another way of saying that persons who are put on the panel framed for promotion to a higher post, are at the given moment considered eligible for promotion. Events subsequent to the formation of the panel may render any person, who is included in the panel, unfit for promotion, which is what has happened in the instant case.'
In view of the misconduct entry awarded to the respondent No. 1, he was not found suitable either for promotion on the post of Inspector or for his name being kept on the panel of selected candidates. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal, thus was not correct in holding that as there was no compliance of the provisions of Para 439 of the Police Regulations, the name of opposite party No. 1 was illegally removed and the same cannot be done without first giving him promotion on the post of Inspector.
14. The writ petition succeeds and the order of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 3.6.1986 is quashed. The opposite party No. 1 is not entitled to anyrelief in the claim petitions.