C.Kanagaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

For Petitioner : Mr.Abudukumar Rajaratnam(in both W.Ps)For Respondents :Ms.V.M.Velumani,(in both W.Ps) Special Government Pleader.C O M M O N O R D E RThe petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and 2 in both thewrit petitions are one and the same and the issue involved in boththe writ petitions are also interconnected, as theW.P.No.16090/2010 was filed challenging the order of inflictingpunishment upon the petitioner and W.P.No.15151/2010 was filed fora direction to include the name of the petitioner in the promotionpanel to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police and assuch, both the writ petitions have been taken up together for finalhearing and for passing this common order. 2. W.P.No.16090/2010 is filed by the petitioner challengingthe order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the first respondent imposingthe punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one yearwithout cumulative effect, with a prayer to quash the same.3. The case of the petitioner is that he was recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1976 and promoted as Inspector ofPolice and worked in the said position from 19.08.1989 to16.05.1992. The petitioner was having unblemished record ofservice. While the petitioner was working in CBCID, Nilgris Unit,he was served with a charge memo dated 10.05.1993 under Rule 3(b)of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline andAppeal) Rules [hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'] by the fourthrespondent/Disciplinary Authority with the following charges:1. Reprehensible conduct in having brought oneKaruthapandi (26/91) S/o. Samiappa Thevar, Ward No.11,Melagudalur Pudur from his father-in-law's house atCumbam Police Station on 21-02-1991 at about 17.00 hourswith the Assistance of Grade I Police Constable. 440Murali Narayanan and Grade I Police Constables.393Gopalakrishnan and kept him in illegal detention atCumbam Police Station for two days.2. Reprehensible conduct in having tortured the saidKaruthapandi by beating him with burning cycle tyre on22-02-1991 at about 03.00 hours at Cumbam Police Station,where he was kept in illegal detention and caused burninjuries on his person and thereby exhibiting high handedaction. 4. Pursuant to the issue of charge memo, the petitioner alsosubmitted his explanation. An enquiry was conducted and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Enquiry Officer held that the first charge has been proved and thesecond charge has not been proved, as per the enquiry reportsubmitted in the year 1994. However, the Disciplinary Authority,namely, the fourth respondent awarded the punishment through itsorder dated 21.02.2002 awarding the punishment of postponement ofincrement for a period of one year with cumulative effect for theproven charges. The petitioner challenged the said order bypreferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority, namely, thethird respondent herein and the Appellate Authority by its orderdated 12.06.2002 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner bysetting aside the award of punishment passed by the DisciplinaryAuthority holding that there is no evidence available on record toprove the charges levelled against the delinquent officer, namely,the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted asDeputy Superintendent of Police on 08-08-2003 and as AssistantCommissioner of Police, Golden Rock Range, Trichy City andthereafter served as Deputy Superintendent of Police, EconomicOffence Wing II in Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 5. While such being the position, the first respondentinitiated suo motu revision under Rule 15(A) of the Rules andcalled for further explanation from the petitioner. The petitionersubmitted his explanation and representation dated 24-04-2008 tothe first respondent. On receipt of such representation, the firstrespondent passed an order dated 03.12.2008 holding that thecharges levelled against the petitioner was proved, inflictingpunishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one yearwithout cumulative effect. The said order was served on thepetitioner only on 26.02.2009. Being aggrieved against the saidorder, the present writ petition is filed.6. Mr.Abudukumar Rajaratnam, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order isuntenable and unsustainable in law and put forward the followingcontentions:(i) There is an inordinate and unexplained delay ofmore than 6 years in passing the impugned order from thedate of setting aside the order of the DisciplinaryAuthority by the Appellate Authority by the order dated12.06.2002 and as such, the entire proceedings isvitiated as the same resulted in grave prejudice andmiscarriage of justice to the petitioner. (ii) There is also intermittent delay at every stageof the disciplinary proceedings as the Enquiry Officercompleted the enquiry and submitted his report as earlyas in the year 1994 and thereafter, the DisciplinaryAuthority passed the order of inflicting punishment ofstoppage of increment for a period of one year withoutcumulative effect only on 21.02.2002 after an inordinateand unexplained delay of eight years and there is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ absolutely no explanation for such inordinate delayforthcoming from the respondents. (iii) The first respondent passed the impugned orderof inflicting punishment upon the petitioner byinitiating suo motu proceedings without assigning anyreasons for deviating from the views of the AppellateAuthority in setting aside the Disciplinary Authorityorder of inflicting punishment, by the order dated12.06.2002 and without assigning any reasons at all inholding that the charges have been proved against thepetitioner and as such, the impugned order is liable tobe set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of hiscontentions, would place reliance on the following decisions:(i) N. Bose v. State of T.N reported in (2009) 1 MLJ 1049(iii) Unreported order of this Court dated 04.11.2009 inW.P.No.4139/20077. Per contra, Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special GovernmentPleader submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in theimpugned order passed by the first respondent. It is contendedthat the reading of the impugned order makes it crystal clear thatthe impugned order was passed after considering the entirematerials available on record and after application of mind and byassigning valid reasons. It is pointed out by the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader that the first respondent has incorporated thefindings of the Disciplinary Authority and the reasons fordeviating from the findings of the Appellate Authority and also theexplanation offered by the delinquent officer and ultimately, thefirst respondent has assigned further reasons for holding that thecharges have been proved against the petitioner. It is furthercontended that there is no time limit for initiating suo motuproceedings against the delinquent officer as per statutory rules.8. This Court carefully considered the rival contentions putforward by either side and perused the entire materials availableon record including the orders passed by the DisciplinaryAuthority, Appellate Authority and the order passed by the firstrespondent on initiation of suo motu proceedings. (I) CLASSIC CASE OF NO EVIDENCE9. At the outset, it is to be stated that this is a clear andclassic case of no evidence. It is pertinent to note that thefindings of the Enquiry Officer as incorporated in the impugnedorder passed by the first respondent dated 03.12.2008 makes itabundantly clear that the Enquiry Officer has rendered such findingof holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been proved by mere presumptions and assumptions and withoutpointing out any evidence available on record. The yet anotherfactor to be borne in mind of this Court is to the order passed bythe Disciplinary Authority dated 21.02.2002, wherein theDisciplinary Authority has not pointed out a single piece ofmaterial or evidence in arriving at the conclusion that the chargeslevelled against the petitioner have been proved and on the otherhand, the Disciplinary Authority mainly placed reliance on theEnquiry Officer's report without application of independent mindand arrived at the conclusion to the effect that the chargeslevelled against the petitioner have been proved, in an arbitraryand mechanical fashion. 10. The injustice caused to the petitioner was set right bythe Appellate Authority through its order dated 12.06.2002, whereinthe Appellate Authority, namely, the third respondent herein haspassed a speaking order by highlighting the materials and evidencesavailable on record and pointed out that there is not an iota ofmaterial available on record to prove the charges levelled againstthe petitioner. It is pertinent to note that though the AppellateAuthority has passed a short order, the said order is full ofreasons based on the examination of the materials available onrecord and the Appellate Authority has clearly pointed out thatnone of the witnesses whispered a word specifying anything aboutthe role played by the petitioner herein in respect of the chargeslevelled against him. 11. The well considered and well reasoned order of theAppellate Authority was sought to be set aside by the firstrespondent by initiating suo motu proceedings after an inordinatedelay of 6 years. It is very painful and shocking to note that thefirst respondent has passed the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 ina mechanical and arbitrary fashion without assigning any validreasons. The perusal of the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 passedby the first respondent reveals that the first respondent hassimply incorporated the charges levelled against the petitioner,explanation offered by the delinquent officer/petitioner, findingsof the Enquiry Officer and the further representation to the showcause notice and ultimately arriving at the conclusion in the lastpara to the effect that he has carefully and independently examinedthe charges, explanation of the delinquent officer, findings of theEnquiry Officer, further representation of the delinquent officerand held that the charges have been proved against the petitionerand inflicted the punishment of stoppage of increment for a periodof one year without cumulative effect on him. 12. It is pertinent to note that though the first respondenthas given a separate heading in the impugned order under the title"Reasons for deviation from the findings of the Inquiry Officer",it is needless to state that the Enquiry Officer has held that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ charges have been proved against the petitioner and on the otherhand, the suo motu proceedings was initiated by the firstrespondent by deviating only the findings of the AppellateAuthority by setting aside the punishment awarded to the petitionerby the Disciplinary Authority. The above said factor itselfdemonstrate clearly about the total non-application of mind of therevisional authority, namely, the first respondent who hasinitiated suo motu proceedings. It is very unfortunate to note thatin the said heading, the revisional authority, namely, the firstrespondent who had initiated suo motu proceedings has not assigneda single reason for deviating the findings given by the AppellateAuthority. In my considered opinion, the impugned order is not onlya non-speaking order, but the said order was passed in total non-application of mind and in an arbitrary and mechanical fashion. 13. It is also relevant to note that a reading of the entireimpugned order does not disclose that the revisional authority,namely, the first respondent herein was able to lay its hand on anysingle piece of evidence available on record to come to theconclusion that the charges have been proved against thepetitioner. As already pointed out, this Court has no hesitation tohold that this is a clear and classic case of no evidence, asneither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Revisional Authority whohad initiated suo motu proceedings pointed out any single scrap orpiece of material available against the petitioner. At the risk ofrepetition, it is to be reiterated that the Enquiry Officer hasrendered its findings on mere presumptions and assumptions andwithout specifying or mentioning any single piece of material orevidence available on record against the petitioner. The perusal ofthe entire records makes it crystal clear that there is not an iotaof material available on record against the petitioner to establishthe charges levelled against him. At this juncture, it is relevantto refer the decision of this Court dated 22.08.2011 inW.P.No.16851/2010, wherein this Court has referred to the decisionof the Hon'ble Apex Court as hereunder: “21. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank andOthers reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Hon'ble ApexCourt held as hereunder:“14.Indisputably, a Departmental proceeding is aquasi-judicial function. The charges levelled performs aquasi-judicial function. The charges levelled againstthe delinquent officer must be found to have beenproved. The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at afinding upon taking into consideration the materialsbrought on record by the parties. The purportedevidence collected during investigation by theInvestigating Officer against all the Accused by itselfcould not be treated to be evidence in the Disciplinaryproceeding. No witness was examined to prove the saiddocuments. The management witnesses merely tendered the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ documents and did not prove the contents thereof.Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officeron the F.I.R which could not have been treated asevidence. We have noticed herein before that the onlybasis evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by theEnquiry Officer was the purported confession made by theAppellant before the police. According to theappellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession,as he was tortured in the police station. Appellantbeing an employee of the bank, the said confessionshould have been proved. Some evidence should have beenbrought on record to show that he had indulged instealing the Bank draft book. Admittedly, there was nodirect evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence.The tenor of the report demonstrates that the EnquiryOfficer had made up his mind to find him guilty asotherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis thatthe offence was committed in such a manner that noevidence was left.”22. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held in the saiddecision as hereunder:“A decision must be arrived at on some evidence,which is legally admissible. The provisions of theEvidence Act may not be applicable in a Departmentalproceeding but the principles of Natural Justice are.As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merelyipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the samecould not have been sustained. The inferences drawn bythe Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by anyevidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high maybe, can under no circumstances be held to be asubstitute for legal proof.”23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision alsoreferred to and relied on its earlier decisions in Unionof India v. H.S.Goel reported in 1964 (1) LLJ 38 (SC),Moni Shankar v. Union of India and Another reported in2008 (3) SCC 484 and Narinder Mohan Arya v. United IndiaInsurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2006 (4) SCC 173.24. This Court in M.Marimuthu v. General Manager(D&PB), SBI reported in 2010 (5) MLJ 925 held asfollows:“In the absence of examination of the authors ofaccusations against the delinquent, the statementsexhibited during the course of enquiry before theenquiry officer is of no evidentiary value. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In a disciplinary proceeding like a civil matter,the Department should come out with all evidence toestablish that there is preponderance of probability tonail the erring employee on the charges levelled againsthim.”25. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble ApexCourt and this Court in the decisions cited supra aresquarely applicable to the facts of the instant case asin this case also the disciplinary authority placedreliance on the sole piece of material, viz., the reportsent by the Director of Government Examination withoutexamining its author and as such, by no stretch ofimagination, it could be considered to be a legalevidence to prove the charge levelled against thedelinquent. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation tohold that this is a classic case of no evidenceavailable on record to prove the charge levelled againstthe petitioner and the disciplinary authority has simplyoverlooked the legal requirement and basic principle forestablishing a charge by adopting the procedure known tolaw and arriving at the conclusion on the basis of legalevidence.“(emphasis supplied)The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as bythis Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable tothe facts of the instant case, as in this case also, as pointed outearlier, this is a clear and classic case of no evidence.Therefore, the entire proceedings is vitiated and the impugnedorder is liable to be set aside. (II) INORDINATE AND UNEXPLAINED DELAY AT EVERY STAGE OF THEPROCEEDINGS.14. Yet another disturbing feature in this case is that thereis an inordinate and unexplained delay at every stage of theproceedings. The petitioner, who is the delinquent officer, hasbeen subjected to untold hardship and mental torture as his careerwas affected and his prospects for promotion was deprived in a mostunjustified manner and ultimately, he has retired from servicewithout such benefits of promotion and other attendant benefits. Atthe outset, it is to be stated that the petitioner was initiallyserved with a charge memo dated 10.05.1993 in respect of theincident alleged to have taken place as early as on 21.02.1991 andas such, there is a delay even in respect of issuing the chargememo against the petitioner and there is absolutely no explanationfor such inordinate delay. Even after issuing the charge memo,there was no progress in the disciplinary proceedings. The factremains that the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ charge memo and thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and theenquiry was completed by submission of the enquiry report as earlyas in the year 1994 holding that the charges levelled against thepetitioner have been proved, but the said report was kept undercold storage for the reasons best known to the authoritiesconcerned. Thereafter, no further proceedings continued. 15. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order of inflictingpunishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one yearwithout cumulative effect against the petitioner only on 21.02.2002after an inordinate delay of more than 8 years and again there isabsolutely no explanation for such inordinate delay of 8 years.The said order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring astatutory appeal and the Appellate Authority has passed the orderon 12.06.2002 setting aside the order of punishment inflicted onthe petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, holding that there isabsolutely no evidence available on record against the petitionerin order to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner.After the said order was passed, the petitioner was promoted to thepost of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 08.08.2003. When thepetitioner was sincerely working, hoping for further promotion, athunder blow came in the form of suo motu revision initiated by thefirst respondent, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 6years and the petitioner also submitted a detailed explanation forthe show cause notice served on him in respect of the suo motuproceedings. However, the first respondent passed the impugnedorder dated 03.12.2008 inflicting punishment of stoppage ofincrement for a period of one year without cumulative effect. ThisCourt already pointed out that even the said order is bereft of anyreasons. It is pertinent to note that in view of such an order,the petitioner has been deprived of his opportunity and hisentitlement for further promotion and he has to retire on August2010. As pointed out earlier there is an inordinate delay at everystage and on the other hand, there is absolutely no explanationwhatsoever forthcoming from the respondents for such inordinatedelay. 16. To sum up, the incident alleged to have taken place in theyear 1991 and the charge memo was issued only in the year 1993 andas such, there was a delay of 2 years in issuing the charge memo.The Enquiry was completed by the Enquiry Officer as early as in theyear 1994, whereas the Disciplinary Authority passed the order ofinflicting punishment only in the year 2002 and as a result, therewas a delay of 8 years and ultimately a further delay of more than6 years was caused in initiating suo motu proceedings. In view ofsuch inordinate and unexplained delay, this Court has no hesitationto hold that the same resulted not only in causing grave prejudiceto the petitioner, but also resulted in grave miscarriage ofjustice, vitiating the entire proceedings. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan V. M.D., Tamil Nadu HousingBoard reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Courthas held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in conductingthe departmental proceedings pursuant to the issue of charge memowould vitiate the departmental proceedings and the relevantportions of the said decision are better to be incorporated as hereunder : "4.In the first case State of Madhya Pradesh v. BaniSingh and another, 1990 Supp. SCC 738, an O.A. was filedby the officer concerned against initiation ofdepartmental enquiry proceedings and issue of charge sheeton April 22, 1987 in respect of certain incidents thathappened in 1975-76 when the said officer was posted asCommandant 14th Battalion, SAF Gwalior. The Tribunalquashed the charge memo and the departmental enquiry onthe ground of inordinate delay of over 12 years in theinitiation of the departmental proceedings with referenceto an incident that took place in 1975-76.The Appeal against the said order was filed in thisCourt on the ground that the Tribunal should not havequashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay andlaches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on todecide the matter on merits.5. ....6. In the second case State of A.P. v.N.Radhakishnan, 1998 (4) SCC 154, the respondent wasappointed as Assistant Director of Town Planning in theyear 1976. A report dated 7.11.1987 was sent by theDirector General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad to the Secretary to the Government, Housing,Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, about the irregularities indeviations and unauthorised constructions in multi storiedcomplexes in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabadin collusion with municipal authorities. On the basis ofthe report, the State issued two memos both dated12.12.1987 in respect of three officials including therespondent Radhakishnan, the then Assistant City Planner.In this case, till 31.07.1995, the articles of charges hadnot been served on the respondent.7.The Tribunal, however, held that the memo dated31.7.1995 related to incidents that happened ten years ormore prior to the date of the memo and that there wasabsolutely no explanation by the Government for this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inordinate delay in framing the charges and conducting theenquiry against the respondent and that there was nojustification on the part of the State now conducting theenquiry against the respondent in respect of the incidentsat this late stage.This Court, in para 19 has observed as follows:"It is not possible to lay down andpredetermined principles applicable to all cases andin all situations where there is delay in concludingthe disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that groundthe disciplinary proceedings are to be terminatedeach case has to be examined on the facts andcircumstances in that case. The essence of thematter is that the Court has to take intoconsideration all the relevant factors and to balanceand weigh them to determine if it is in the interestof clean and honest administration that thedisciplinary proceedings should be allowed toterminate after delay particularly when the delay isabnormal and there is no explanation for the delay.The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinaryproceedings against him are concluded expeditiouslyand he is not made to undergo mental agony and alsomonetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolongedwithout any fault on his part in delaying theproceedings. In considering whether the delay hasvitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the court hasto consider the nature of charge, its complexity andon what account the delay has occurred. If the delayis unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employeeis writ large on the face of it. It could also beseen as to how much the disciplinary authority isserious in pursuing the charges against its employee.It is the basic principle of administrative justicethat an officer entrusted with a particular job hasto perform his duties honestly, efficiently and inaccordance with the rules. If he deviates from thispath he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally,disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to taketheir course as per relevant rules but then delaydefeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to thecharged officer unless it can be shown that he is notblamed for the delay or when there is properexplanation for the delay in conducting thedisciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court isto balance these two diverse considerations.8. This Court held that there was hardly anyexplanation worth consideration as to why the delayoccurred. In the circumstances, this Court held that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated31.7.1995 and directing the State to promote therespondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memosdated 27.10.1995 and 1.6.1996. Accordingly, the appealfiled by the State of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed."The Honourable Apex Court in the said decision further observed atparagraph 10 as follows :"10. The very same ground has been specificallyraised in this appeal before this Court wherein it isstated that the delay of more than 10 years in initiatingthe disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memowould render the departmental proceedings vitiated andthat in the absence of any explanation for the inordinatedelay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of chargememo would justify the prayer for quashing the proceedingsas made in the writ petition."The Honourable Apex Court ultimately held in the decision citedsupra as here under : (para 15)"15. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash thecharge memo issued against the appellant. The appeal isallowed. The appellant will be entitled to all theretiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiralbenefits shall be disbursed within three months from thisdate. No costs."18. A Division Bench of this Court also quashed the chargememo on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay of issuingcharge memo in A.Obaidhullah Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9 and another (2005 (5) CTC 380) by followingthe Apex Court’s decision (Mahadevan’s case). Another DivisionBench of this Court in D.Amaladoss Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department (CourtsI.A.), Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 and another (2006 (5) CTC141), quashed the charge memo on the ground of delay as well asconduct of parties. In yet another Division Bench decision of thisCourt in Union of India represented by the Secretary to Governmentof Pondicherry, Revenue Department, Pondicherry and another, etc.,(2005(1) CTC 566) the charge memo was set aside on the ground ofinordinate and unexplained delay in issuing the charge memo. 19. In a similar matter, a learned Single Judge of this Courtby placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of thiscourt in A.Obaidhullah Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented bythe Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and another (2005 (5) CTC 380) has held that the charge memo isliable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate and unexplaineddelay. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and bythis Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable tothe facts of the instant case, as in this case also, this Courtalready held that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay inissuing the charge memo, completing the enquiry, disciplinaryproceedings and ultimately passing the impugned order through theinitiation of suo motu proceedings. 21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court has come tothe irresistible conclusion that the impugned order isunsustainable in law. Accordingly, W.P.No.16090/2010 is allowedand the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated03.12.2008 in G.O.(2D).No.696, Home (Pol.IV) Department dated03.12.2008, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for aperiod of one year without cumulative effect upon the petitioner,is hereby set aside. No costs.22. In view of allowing of the writ petition inW.P.No.16090/2010 by setting aside the impugned order of punishmentawarded against the petitioner, the other writ petition filed bythe petitioner, namely, W.P.No.15151/2010 is liable to be disposedof with a consequential direction to the respondents to givenotional promotion to the petitioner, if the petitioner isotherwise eligible and qualified to the post of AdditionalSuperintendent of Police with all attendant and monetary benefits.It is made clear that the above said exercise shall be completedwithin a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarjvmTo1.The Secretary to Government, The Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Pol.IV) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Inspector General of Police, (Crime Branch), Chennai 600 002.4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime Branch, CID, Chennai.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.196181 CC to Mr.Abudukumar Rajaratnam,Advocate, SR.19531W.P.Nos.15151 and 16090/2010and M.P.Nos.1, 1 of 2011BKY(CO)SRA(23/04/2012)