News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 75 | 2026:CGHC:5106
Bilaspur, January 30, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has directed the state police authorities to reconsider the promotion of a head constable whose elevation to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector was denied solely on the ground that an inquiry was pending, even though no criminal case or departmental proceedings were active against him.
In a writ petition filed by Vijay Kumar Pandey, the court examined the legality of the decision taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee in April 2024, which excluded his name from the merit list for promotion from Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector. Pandey had already cleared the departmental examination and completed the mandatory training required under the applicable promotion rules.
The state authorities had cited a pending inquiry by the Enforcement Directorate and the Economic Offences Wing in connection with the Mahadev App investigation as the reason for withholding his promotion. Pandey was earlier placed under suspension for a brief period after he appeared before the ED for oral questioning. However, a preliminary departmental inquiry later concluded that he had attended the ED proceedings after informing and obtaining permission from his superiors. The inquiry was closed, his suspension was revoked, and the suspension period was formally regularised without any adverse entry in his service record.
Despite this, his name was left out when promotion orders were issued in October 2024. Challenging the decision, Pandey argued that he was neither named as an accused in any FIR nor chargesheeted in any criminal case, and that mere participation in an inquiry could not justify denial of promotion under the Chhattisgarh Police Promotion SOP, 2021.
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu agreed with the petitioner’s contention. The court noted that Clause 11 of the Promotion SOP permits the sealed cover procedure only when a departmental inquiry or criminal case is pending at the stage of issuance of a charge memo or chargesheet, or when the employee is under suspension. In Pandey’s case, none of these conditions existed on the date when the promotion committee considered eligible candidates.
The court relied on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India, including the rulings in K.V. Jankiraman and subsequent judgments, which hold that mere pendency of investigation or preliminary inquiry, without formal charges, cannot be a ground to deny consideration for promotion. While promotion itself is not a fundamental right, the right to be fairly and meaningfully considered for promotion is protected under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the court reiterated.
Finding the state’s action arbitrary and contrary to its own promotion policy, the High Court directed the authorities to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee. If Pandey is found otherwise eligible and suitable, he must be promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector from the date his juniors were promoted. The court clarified that while his seniority and pay must be fixed notionally from that date, he would not be entitled to arrears of salary for the intervening period.
The ruling reinforces the principle that public servants cannot be penalised in their career progression merely on the basis of unsubstantiated inquiries, and that promotion decisions must strictly adhere to the governing rules and constitutional safeguards.
Case Reference : WPS No. 1628 of 2025, Vijay Kumar Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, counsels: for the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate; for the State, Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer.
