P.Meenambal v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.08.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARANW.P.No.4257 of 2006 (T)(O.A.No.477 of 2002) P.Meenambal... Petitioner Vs1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai.2. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. ... RespondentsThis petition came to be numbered on transfer of O.A.No.477 of2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, todirect the respondents to regularise the services of the petitionerin the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police from the date of O.A. from13.11.1994 and grant her all consequential promotion as Inspector ofPolice and monetary benefits.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior counsel for Mr.M.MuthappanFor Respondents : Mr.Edwin Prabhakar, A.G.P. ****O R D E RThe facts are as follows:The petitioner entered the service as Grade I Police Constable bydirect recruitment in Madurai City on 28.07.1977. She was promoted asHead Constable on 16.09.1988 and she was promoted temporarily as SubInspector of Police by the orders of the Director General of Police,Chennai in his proceedings dated 10.10.1994. The petitioner has beenserving as temporary Sub Inspector of Police continuously from13.11.1994 and without any break.2. The petitioner had suffered two punishments namely in P.R.No.81/89, dated 19.11.1990 and another in PR No.244/89 dated22.01.1991 imposed by the Superintendent of Police at Sivaganga, forminor delinquencies. Because of the punishments, the probation ofthe petitioner as Head Constable was extended twice and finally shecompleted her probation on 23.03.1991.3. The Range promotion Board was conducted in Madurai Range bythe Chairman and Superintendent of Police, Madurai District duringthe year 1988 for the regularisation of the temporary Women SubInspector of Police who are already serving in that Range. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The petitioner appeared before the Board and she wasselected and included in the list in Sl.No.2. The petitioner wasinformed to appear before the Principal, Police Training School,Coimbatore on 20.12.1998 and to undergo nine week pre-promotionalInstitutional Training from 21.12.1998. Unfortunately, thepetitioner was not sent for training for reasons best known to therespondents. The petitioner was made to believe that as she sufferedpunishments in 1990 and 1991, she was not regularised. According tothe petitioner, the punishment suffered by her during the years 1990and 1991 could not be relied upon to defer her promotion.5. Another Range of Promotion Board was conducted in MaduraiRange by the Superintendent of Police on 27.03.2001. The petitionerparticipated again and came out successful in all stages ofselection. She was sent for nine weeks Pre-Promotion Courseconducted for the Sub Inspector of Police as well as the promotion asSub Inspector of Police on 17.06.2001 and she completed the courseand now serving in Tiruparankundram Police Station.6. It is the case of the petitioner that as she has been servingas temporary Sub Inspector of Police from 13.11.1994 her servicesought to have been regularised from that date only. When similarlyplaced persons who were promoted temporarily as Sub Inspector ofPolice on and from 13.11.1994 were regularised from that date, shewas alone discriminated and therefore, she filed O.A.No.477 of 2002praying for a direction directing the respondents to regularise herservices from the initial appointment i.e. 13.11.1994 and grant herall consequential service and mandatory benefits. On the abolitionof the tribunal, O.A.No.477 of 2002 was transferred to this Court andre-numbered as W.P.No.4257 of 2006.7. A reply affidavit has been filed by K.P.Mahendran, DeputyInspector General of Police on 12.8.1992 wherein it was stated thatshe was promoted as Woman Sub Inspector of Police on temporary basisas per the order dated 24.10.1994 and also as per the orders of theDirector General of Police dated 10.10.1994 and she joined the poston 15.11.1994. In the orders issued on 10.10.1994, it wasspecifically mentioned that the petitioner has been promoted asWoman Sub Inspector of Police under Order 15(a) of sub-rules ofTamilnadu Police Subordinate Services read with Adhoc Rules governingthe Women Police Wing. It was clearly stated in the order that theirservices shall be liable to be terminated at any time without noticeand they are not entitled to claim any preference in futurepromotions. An undertaking was also sought for from them that theywould not claim any seniority or pay fixation for the temporarypromotion being ordered. Therefore, it was contended in the replyaffidavit that the petitioner cannot claim any seniority,regularisation, etc. as in the case of others who are qualified byall aspects and got regularisation with retrospective effect. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. It is further stated that in the Memo dated 15.09.1998 issuedby the Director General of Police, Chennai-4 there are certainconditions stipulated and according to condition No.5(v) of the Memodated 15.09.1998, the Women Constables (presently working as WomanSub Inspector of Police) who are otherwise eligible for beingconsidered for promotion as Woman Sub Inspector of Police should nothave suffered any statutory punishment under Tamilnadu PoliceSubordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules during five yearspreceding their date of promotion as temporary Woman Sub Inspector ofPolice. In the case of the petitioner, she was promoted as temporarySub Inspector of Police on 15.11.1994, but the punishment was awardedin PR.No.81/89 on 24.11.1990 and the period of 5 years from the dateof awarding the punishment expired only on 24.11.1995, i.e., beforethe expiry period of five years. Hence, with reference to theconditions prescribed by the Director General of Police, thepetitioner is not eligible for regularisation of her temporaryservices as Sub Inspector of Police. With regard to others who havebeen regularised with retrospective effect, it was stated that theyhave satisfied the norms prescribed in the Memo dated 15.09.1998 andtherefore, there is no question of discriminating the petitioner.9. Heard Thiru K.Venkataramani, the learned Senior counsel forthe petitioner and Thiru Edwin Prabhakar, learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader for the respondents. I have also gone through theentire documents available on record. 10. The only question that arises for consideration in thiswrit petition is that whether the petitioner is entitled toregularise her services from 13.11.1994 as claimed by her.11. It is not in dispute that on 13.11.1994, the DirectorGeneral of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai ordered that the petitioneron promotion as temporary Woman Sub Inspector of Police was posted toWomen Police Wing, Tiruparankundram, Madurai Rural District. As peroffice Memo dated 29.09.1998, a Promotion Board was convened inMadurai Range and the board on 22.10.1998 recommended the case of thepetitioner for regularisation. She was also directed to reportbefore the Principal, Police Training School to undergo nine weeksPre-promotion Institutional Training from 21.12.1998. It is anadmitted fact that she was not sent for Police Training andtherefore, she appeared before the Board once again in the year 2001and became eligible for the Drill Test and Viva voce examination. On7.8.2001, she was asked to undergo three months Practical Training inher Parent Unit. It is also an admitted fact that thereafter herservices were regularised with effect from 28.11.2001.12. The contention of the petitioner is that having beenpromoted temporarily as Sub Inspector of Police on and from13.11.1994 and having been successfully selected by the PromotionBoard on 22.10.1998 itself, her services ought to have been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ regularised on and from 13.11.1994 as the respondents reggularisedthe services of other similarly placed persons. This argument wassought to be rejected by the respondents by contending that when hercase was first considered by the Board, a memo dated 15.09.1998 wasissued by the Director General of Police prescribing certainconditions for regularising the temporarily promoted WomenConstables. As per the Memo, dated 15.09.1998, the petitioner oughtnot to have suffered any statutory punishments during five yearspreceding her date of promotion as temporary Sub Inspector of Police.As she is to be promoted from 13.11.1994 and she suffered apunishment on 24.11.1990, i.e. well within the period of five years,she was not promoted and her case was duly considered in the year2001 and consequently, she was properly regularised on and from28.11.2001. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the Memo dated 15.9.1998, in para 5(vii) states that otherGuidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 18.10.1993 would befollowed for promotion of the temporary Woman Sub Inspector of Policeas regular Sub Inspector of Police. If that being so, the learnedSenior counsel points out that G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 18.10.1993 willhave a bearing in the present case. But, the same was not at allconsidered by the respondents resulting in wrongly applying theprinciples to reject the case of the petitioner. He produced a copyof G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 18.10.1993 wherein in Chapter II/VI(2)(a), itis stated that in the case of selection category post, the inclusionof names in the Panel from promotion will be based on ability andsenionrity being considered only when merit and ability of thecontesting candidates are nearly equal. Therefore, strict comparisonof the cases of the individuals offered a specified period of service(say for five years) taken up for analysis is quite necessary beforedeciding upon the question of inclusion or exclusion as the scope forsubjective satisfaction and interpretation is limited. For thepurpose of comparison, the proved irregularities which took placeduring the said specified period of service have to be taken intoconsideration whether or not the person concerned was proceededagainst under Rule 17(a) and (b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services(Classification Control and Appeal) Rules.13. Relying on the above said para, the learned Senior counselsubmitted that what was contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.368 dated18.10.1993 is the date on which the proved irregularities took placeand not the date on which the punishment was awarded. He furtheradds that if the proved irregularities are taken into considerationin the case of the petitioner that related to the period from28.10.1989 which occurred well before the five years periodcontemplated in the Government Order and in that case, she is verymuch eligible to be regularised as claimed by her.14. The learned Senior counsel further produced a letter dated28.06.1996 issued by the Secretary to Government to all otherDepartments wherein the norms being adopted by the Director General https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Police as per G.O.Ms.No.368 were clarified and according to whichif any punishment ordered is within a period of five years as oncrucial date, but, the date of occurrence falls beyond the period offive years, then it is not held against the officer. Relying onthese norms, the learned Senior counsel urged that in thepetitioner's case also, even though the punishment ordered is withinthe period of five years as on crucial date, the date of occurrencefalls beyond the period of five years and therefore, that punishmentshould not be held against her.15. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader reliedon a letter dated 20.10.1997 issued by the Chief Secretary to allother Departments wherein it was stated that any punishment otherthen Censure imposed on an Officer within a period of five years tothe crucial date and a punishment of Censure within a period of oneyear prior to the crucial date should be held against the Officer.Relying on this letter dated 20.10.1997, the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader submitted that as the date of punishment fellwithin the period of five years prior to the crucial date, thepetitioner is not entitled to be regularised her services as claimedby her.16. The learned Senior counsel relying on another letter dated01.10.1999 issued by the then Chief Secretary to all otherdepartments wherein it was stipulated that if the Officer was imposedwith any of the punishment within the check period forirregularities/delinquencies which occurred five years prior to thecrucial date, such punishment need not be held against the Officer.17. Against this letter relied on by the learned Senior counsel,the learned Additional Government Pleader has also relied on anotherletter dated 1.10.1999 issued by the Chief Secretary to the otherdepartments stating that whenever an Officer is undergoing anypunishment and the crucial date on the date of consideration, thenirrespective of the time of the occurrence of the irregularity, hisname should be passed over for the panel. Relying on this letter, thelearned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that the case ofthe petitioner has been rightly rejected.18. But, yet another letter dated 19.10.2001 was relied on bythe learned Senior counsel wherein once again it was stated that ifthe Officer was imposed with any of the punishments within the checkperiod for irregularities/ delinquencies which occurred five yearsprior to the crucial date, such punishment need not be held againsthim, if such punishment is not in the current year in the crucialdate and also on the date of consideration of the Panel.19. I have considered the submissions of both the learnedcounsel carefully and I have also gone through the Government ordersand the letters. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. A close reading of those Government Orders and letters willmake it very clear that the respondents themselves are not very sureabout considering the date of punishment or the date of occurrenceprior to the crucial date and therefore, different orders anddifferent letters were issued time and again stipulating to be theyardstick while considering the case of an officer who was imposedwith a punishment.21. Considering the fact that the respondents themselves are notsure about applying the correct condition, I am of the consideredview that the Writ petitioner can be given the benefit ofregularisation as claimed by her on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.368 dated18.10.1993 and the norms issued by the Chairman, TNPSC, according towhich if any punishment ordered is within a period of five years ason crucial date, but the date of occurrence falls beyond the periodof five years, then it is not held against the Officer. A copy ofthese norms were enclosed with the letter of the Secretary toGovernment, dated 28.06.1996, stating that they are to be followed,so that the suitability of the candidates could be assessed uniformlywithout giving room for discrimination from one department to anotherwhile finalising the panels either through Departmental PromotionCommittee or Committee of Promotion. This letter dated 28.6.1996 wasalso sent to the Secretary, T.N.P.S.C., Chennai 2.22. It is also not in dispute that even in the Memo dated15.9.1998 issued by the Director General of Police which was reliedon by the respondents for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, itwas stipulated that the guidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.368 dated18.10.1993 would be followed. This G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 18.10.1993was interpreted so many times by the Government by issuing differentguidelines. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the caseof the petitioner could be considered on the basis of thenorms/guidelines adopted by TNPSC and if considered on the basis ofthe above norms, it is very clear that the petitioner has to beregularised on and from 13.11.1994 as the date of occurrence of theirregularity was on 28.10.1989, which is beyond the period of fiveyears as on the crucial date.23. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed forand the respondents are directed to regularise the services of thepetitioner in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police from 13.11.1994and grant all consequential benefits within a period of four monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No cost. vaanSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai.2. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 1CC to Mr.T.Aynagaraprabhu, Advocate (SR.No.38660)W.P.No.4257 of 2006(O.A.No.477 of 2002)Rs (CO)SS (27.10.2009)