Vaithialingam v. Director General of Police Chennai 600 004.2.Deputy Inspector General of Police Villupuram

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10-9-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.7773 of 2007andMP Nos.1 and 2 of 2007Vaithialingam.. Petitioner vs1.Director General of Police Chennai 600 004.2.Deputy Inspector General of Police Villupuram Range Villupuram3.Superintendent of Police Villupuram Range Villupuram.. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the recordsissued by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.248564 NGB IV(1) 2006dated 24.1.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents to promotethe petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police/Inspector of Police on par withthe juniors who were promoted.For Petitioner: Mr.V.GangatharanFor Respondents: Mr.N.Senthilkumar Additional GovernmentPleaderORDERInvoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner hasbrought forth this writ petition seeking to quash the orders of the firstrespondent in Rc.No.248564 NGB IV(1) 2006 dated 24.1.2007, whereby hisrepresentation for promotion was rejected, and also to issue a directionto the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sub Inspector ofPolice/Inspector of Police on par with the juniors who are promoted.2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.3.The case of the petitioner in short is that he joined the policeservice in the year 1972 as a Constable; that while he was working,certain charges were levelled against him in P.R.No.176/78; that anenquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer; that out of the two charges,one was found proved; that following the same, the Superintendent ofPolice dismissed him from service; that he took it on appeal before theD.I.G. of Police, Chengalpattu Range, where the order passed by theSuperintendent of Police, dismissing the petitioner, was set aside, and he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was reinstated in service; that thereafter, for the same allegations, theDeputy Superintendent of Police issued a charge memo; that he immediatelyfiled a writ petition in WP No.10038 of 1985 before this Court; that thesame was stayed; that the matter was transferred to the TamilnaduAdministrative Tribunal in T.A.No.377 of 1992 wherein the charge memoissued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, was set aside; that theTribunal has also observed that he is entitled to all monetary and servicebenefits; that he filed O.A.No.29 of 2000 before the AdministrativeTribunal for a direction to promote him to the appropriate post of HeadConstable and Sub Inspector of Police pending P.R. No.50 of 1985; thatnow, there was no P.R. pending against him; that he is entitled forpromotion as Sub Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police; that thepersons appointed, who are all juniors to him, have been promoted; thatunder the circumstances, he gave several representations to therespondents; that the said transfer application was disposed of by theTribunal on 12.7.2002; that promotion was not at all considered; that theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal allowed the application setting asidethe charge memo, and observed that he is entitled to all the service andmonetary benefits; that the order of the Tribunal is not complied with bythe respondents; that under the circumstances, he filed WP No.46940 of2006 before this Court for a direction to promote the petitioner as SubInspector of Police or Inspector of Police; that this Court passed anorder on 4.12.2006 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner'seligibility for promotion; that following the same, the representation wasrejected by the first respondent, and under the circumstances, this writpetition has been brought forth.4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner stressed on two points.Firstly, the rejection of the representation was against the principles ofnatural justice. Secondly, all his juniors who are equally placed, werepromoted, and under the circumstances, he should have also been promoted.The learned Counsel would further submit that even there wasdiscrimination noticed, and hence, the writ petition has got to be ordered.5.The Court heard the learned Additional Government Pleader.According to him, the representation was well considered by the authority,and a detailed order has also been passed, which is the subject matter ofchallenge, and from the order, it would be clear that as far as the caseof one Sundaramurthy was concerned, he was equally placed with thepetitioner; but, this petitioner has actually waived his seniority andopted to go to the local police forgoing the seniority in A.R. in 1976itself, and as far as the other candidate by name Ameer Jhon, wasconcerned, though he belonged to the same batch, his seniority is abovethe petitioner at the time of the appointment itself, and under thecircumstances, the petitioner was only to be promoted as Head Constablewhich has also been done, giving retrospective effect, and hence, the writpetition has got to be dismissed.6.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.This Court is unable to see any merit in the writ petition.7.It would be unnecessary to go into the details narrated above.After the passing of the order in the writ petition referred to above, toconsider the representation of the petitioner for eligibility as to theseniority, the respondent has passed an order rejecting therepresentation. From the very reading of the order, it would be quite https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ clear that one Sundaramurthy was enlisted as GR.II PC on 12.2.1974. It istrue that this petitioner should have also been given the seniority. But,in the year 1976 itself, the petitioner has opted to go to the localpolice forgoing his seniority, which fact is not denied. As far as theother candidate Ameer Jhon was concerned, though he belonged to the samebatch of the petitioner, he was senior in the list at the time ofappointment itself. Now, the petitioner cannot come forward with thegrievance to state that both Sundaramurthy and Ameer Jhon have beenequally placed, and they have been given promotion, but not thepetitioner. It is an admitted position that he was promoted as HeadConstable with effect from 16.1.1998 and completed the probation in thecategory of Head Constable on 18.10.2006. That apart, it has been givenretrospective effect also. Under the circumstances, no grievance could beventilated by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition does not carryany merit.8.In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarnsv/To:1.The Director General of Police Chennai 600 004.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Villupuram Range Villupuram3.The Superintendent of Police Villupuram Range Villupuram1 CC To Mr.R.Ganesan, Advocate, SR NO.56422.1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR NO.56661.WP No.7773 of 2007KA(CO)RVL 14.09.2007