K. Raman v. The Director General of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 5-2-2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P.No.12604, 12605 of 2006W.P.M.P.Nos.18561, 18562 of 2006W.P.No.12604 of 2006K. Raman...PetitionerVs.

The Director General of Police, Chennai - 600 004.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore.

The Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Salem....Respondents. Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondentsto include the petitioner's name in the 'C' list of Head Constables, fitfor promotion as Sub Inspector of Police, for the year 1994 approved inD.O.No.1478/96 (Rc.No.4020/A1/96) dated ....11.1996 of the Superintendentof Police, Dharmapuri, notwithstanding and without reference to thependency of criminal proceedings in S.C.No.117/96, Sessions Court, Krishnagiri and connected departmental proceedings in P.R.No.3/97, by the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri.W.P.No.12605 of 2006K. Noorullah Khan...PetitionerVs.1.The Director General of Police, Chennai - 600 004.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.4. **Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Fort St George, Chennai. 9. Respondents. (R4 Impleaded as per Order dated 5.4.2007 in MP.No 1/07 in WP.No. 12605/06)Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondentsto include the petitioner's name in the panel of Inspectors of Police fitfor appointment by recruitment by transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-1) for the year 2000-2001, issued in G.O.Ms.No.1026, Home(Police-2) Department, dated 15.10.2001 notwithstanding and withoutreference to the pendency of criminal proceedings in S.C.No.117/96,Sessions Court, Krishnagiri and connected departmental proceedingsinitiated by the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri. For Petitioners: Mr.M.RaviFor Respondents: Mr.I.Paranthaman, Government AdvocateCOMMON ORDERBy consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as thelearned Government Advocate, the writ petition is taken up for finaldisposal. 2. Petitioners in the respective writ petitions seek direction tothe respondents to include their names in the list of persons, fit forpromotion to the next higher post respectively, without reference to thependency of S.C.No.117 of 1996 on the file of the Sessions Court, Krishnagiri and connected departmental proceedings initiated against them. 3. Petitioner in W.P.No.12604 of 2006 is a Head Constable and thepetitioner in W.P.No.12605 of 2006 is an Inspector of Police, and they areaccused No.171 and 157 respectively in the criminal case pending inS.C.No.117 of 1996 on the file of the Sessions Court, Krishnagiri. Thesaid criminal case is registered by the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, in connection with the assault of the villagers of Vachathi on20.6.1992 for the offences under sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 427 IPC,read with section 3(1)(10)(11)(13)(15) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the said case, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Police Officials, Officials of the Forest Department and the Officials ofthe Revenue Department are arrayed as accused. The petitioners were alsoproceeded departmentally in P.R.No.3 of 1997 and a charge memo under Rule3(b) is pending against them.

According to the petitioners, they are fit for promotion to thepost of Sub-Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Policerespectively, but their names were not considered due to the pendency ofthe above criminal case and departmental proceeding. Since thepetitioners are denied promotion due to the pendency of the departmentalproceeding and criminal case, they have filed the above writ petition bycontending that other accused in the same criminal case of Vachathiincident were granted further promotion subject to the outcome of thecriminal case. Similarly, several Forest Officials, who are involved inthe same incident, numbering 13 have been promoted to the next higher postsubject to the result of the criminal case.

It is also stated in the affidavit that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9046 to 9048 of 2004 by order dated 6.2.2006 directed toconsider the promotion of those officials in accordance with the rules, without reference to the pendency of the criminal case and subject to thefiling of the affidavit of undertaking by the concerned and several ofthem were given promotion subject to the result of the criminal case anddepartmental proceeding and subject to review thereafter. Hence thepetitioners are also praying for similar treatment. Petitioners havesubmitted representation on 10.12.2005 and 20.12.2005 respectively andprayed for promotion subject to the result of the criminal case as well asdepartmental proceeding as it has been given to the similarly placedaccused in the very same criminal case.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that followingthe Division Bench judgment referred above, I have issued similardirection in W.P.No.5617 of 2006 dated 29.3.2006 on filing affidavit ofundertaking by the concerned petitioner and the said order is alsoimplemented by the respondents. In the said order, I have followed thejudgment of the Division Bench in W.P.Nos.9046 to 9048 of 2004 dated6.2.2006 wherein paragraphs 9 and 10 read as follows,"9. Without going into the merits and withoutprejudice to the various legal contentions raised inthe writ petitions and in view of the affidavit of thepetitioner dated 4.2.2006 and the memo dated 6.2.2006filed by the counsel for the respondents and theaffidavits of undertaking filed by the respondents, the Department shall implement the order of the Tribunal. Such promotion shall be subject to the result of theshow cause notice proceeding said to be pending against Mariyappan and 12 others. The respondents shall abideby the order of the appropriate authority or the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ authorised officer who will pass the order in theproceeding in respect of the said Mariyappan and 12others. It is made clear that if any order is passedagainst the said Mariyappan and 12 others, revertingthem to lower post, the respondents will also beautomatically reverted without any further notice orproceedings. 10. This order is being passed on its ownpeculiar facts and circumstances in view of the factthat the Government has promoted the officials in the Police and Revenue Departments involved in the sameincident and keeping in view the undertaking given bythe respondents, such order shall not be treated as aprecedent in other matters. The writ petitions aredisposed of accordingly. No costs. "In the present cases, petitioners have not filed any affidavit as it wasfiled in other cases.

Even though counter affidavit is filed in the writ petitioneropposing the claim of the petitioners, it is admitted that the otheraccused in the same criminal case involved in the Vachathi incident weregiven promotion temporarily subject to the result of the criminal case anddepartmental proceeding, under Rule 39 of the General Rules of the TamilNadu State and Subordinate Rule. 8. In the light of the above undisputed facts, the respondents aredirected to consider and pass orders on merits in the representationssubmitted by the petitioners dated 10.12.2005 and 20.12.2005, subject tothe affidavit of undertaking to be filed by the petitioners before therespondents. While considering the claim of the petitioners, it is opento the respondents to take note of the promotion given to the similarlyplaced persons who are co-accused in the above criminal case, as admittedin the counter affidavit, within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt of copy of this order. Petitioners are directed to submitaffidavit of undertaking before the respondents within one week from thedate of receipt of copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petitions are ordered in the above terms. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar (Records)06/02/2007(**Corrected order to be issued)Sd/Asst. Registrar (CS-I)/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Director General of Police, Chennai - 600 004.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, To be SunstitutedVellore Range, Vellore.to the Order already despatched on3.TheSuperintendent of Police,06/02/2007.Salem District, Salem. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.5. The Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Fort St George, Chennai.9.(R4 Impleaded as per Order dated 5.4.2007 in MP.No 1/07 in WP.No. 12605/06)+ Two CCs to Mr. M. Ravi Advocate SR Nos.6866&6865SGL (co)sg 06/02, sg 19/6/07Order in W.P.Nos.12604, 12605/2006 5-2-2007