Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Director General of Police, Chennai-4 v. R.Alfered Wilson2. The Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.4.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANW.P.No.13846 of 2002& W.P.M.P.No.18703 of 20021. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Director General of Police, Chennai-4... Petitioners vs.1. R.Alfered Wilson2. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104. .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the recordspertaining to the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated9.10.2001 and 2.11.2001 made in O.A.No.3783 of 2001 and quash the same.For petitioners : Mr.K.Balakrishnan, Addl.G.PFor respondent-1 : Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.MuthappanORDER(The Order of the Court was made by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla,J)The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George,Chennai-9 and the Director General of Police, Chennai-4, are thepetitioners herein. The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the ordersof the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 9.10.2001 and 2.11.2001in O.A.No.3783 of 2001.2. Brief facts which are required to be stated are that the firstrespondent herein who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, was due forpromotion to the post of Inspector of Police in the panel year 1999-2000.The crucial date of the panel was 1.6.1999. The panel was prepared on12.8.1999, in which the first respondent's name was included. However, on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.3.2000, he was placed under suspension for his failure to register acriminal case. On 15.3.2000, the charge memo was issued under Rule 3(b)of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal)Rules. Therefore, his promotion was with-held for the year 1999-2000. Thesuspension was revoked and he was reinstated on 20.5.2000. Ultimately,the disciplinary action ended in the punishment of increment cut for aperiod of one year with cumulative effect, by order dated 30.9.2000. Thefirst respondent preferred an appeal and the appellate authority, namelythe Deputy Inspector General of Police, modified the punishment ofincrement cut as one without cumulative effect, by his order dated12.12.2000. On a further review to the Director General of Police, thepunishment was further modified as one of censure instead of incrementcut, by order dated 31.3.2001. The cumulative effect of the above referredto three orders was that there was a punishment of censure as on30.9.2000. The petitioner was due for promotion for the post of theInspector of Police in the year 1999-2000 as well as in the year 2000-2001. 3. It is in the above stated background, the first respondent movedthe Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing O.A.No.3783 of 2001, fora direction to the petitioners herein to promote the first respondentherein as Inspector of Police in pursuance of the inclusion of his name inthe 'C' list of Sub-Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspectorsof Police for the year 1999-2000, published by the second petitioner inRC.No.129130/NGB/I/1/99, dated 12.8.1999 without reference to thepunishment of censure in P.R.No.90/2000, dated 31.3.2001, and grant himall consequential service and monetary benefits. 4. The Tribunal took the view that since there was no punishment ason the crucial date, namely 1.6.1999, the first respondent's name wasincluded in the panel, he ought not to have been denied promotion rightfrom the year 1999-2000. So holding, the Tribunal directed the petitionersto give promotion to the first respondent as Inspector of Police, based onthe inclusion of his name in the year of panel for the year 1999-2000,dated 12.8.1999, with all seniority by virtue of such inclusion and othermonetary benefits. 5. Heard Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader forthe petitioners and Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the first respondent.6. Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the firstrespondent, while referring to the relevant Government Order inG.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated18.10.1993, fairly stated that by virtue of the Clause contained in thesaid G.O., namely "if specific charges are framed ... the person concernedshall not be promoted notwithstanding the fact that his name has beenincluded in the panel. The instructions in para (3) above will apply inthis case thereafter.", the petitioner may not be eligible for hispromotion in the panel year 1999-2000 irrespective of the fact that hisname was included in the panel. The learned Senior Counsel however https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contended that the subsequent guidelines issued by the Government, in theproceedings of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (s) Department,dated 20.10.1997, with particular reference to paragraph II relating tothe effect of punishment of inclusion in the panel, wherein Clause (2)specifically states that the punishment of censure in order to operate asa bar for promotion of a Government servant, such punishment of censureshould have been passed within a period of one year prior to the crucialdate. The relevant clause reads as under:"2) Any punishment, other than 'Censure' imposed onan Officer within a period of five years prior to thecrucial date and punishment of 'Censure' within a periodof one year prior to the crucial date should be heldagainst the officer. In such a case the officer's nameshould be passed over."7. As far as the currency of punishment is concerned, by thesubsequent proceedings dated 10.6.1998, the Government has made it clearthat the punishment of censure has no currency. 8. A combined reading of the above two Government Orders dated20.10.1997 and 10.6.1998, makes it clear that if censure is to operate asa bar for promotion, such censure as a punishment should have been passedone year prior to the crucial date. Since the censure has no currency, itcannot operate as a bar during the relevant panel year. 9. In the above said background, when we consider the case of thefirst respondent, though the initial punishment of increment cut withcumulative effect was passed on 30.9.2000 and by a review, the authority,in his order dated 31.3.2001, modified the same as one of censure, thatshould date back to 30.9.2000. The crucial date in the case of the firstrespondent would then be 1.6.2000 for the panel year 2000-2001. As thedate of punishment was 30.9.2000 and since there was no currency ofpunishment, and if at all, it has to operate as bar, such censure shoulddate back to the period prior to 1.6.2000, since on 15.3.2000, thepetitioner was issued with a charge memo. By virtue of paragraph II(iv)(5)of G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated18.10.1993, relating to "consideration of persons against whom enquiriesare pending and specific charges have been framed or charge sheet has beenfiled in criminal cases", the first respondent was not entitled for thepromotion to the post of Inspector of Police for the year 1999-2000. Sincethe punishment of censure dates back to 30.9.2000, it did not come withinthe relevant period for consideration in order to deny him his promotionfor the panel year 2000-2001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. Therefore, in the light of the said position, the order of theTribunal in directing the petitioners herein to accord promotion to thefirst respondent in the panel year 1999-2000, cannot be sustained.However, the first respondent is definitely entitled for his promotion forthe subsequent year, namely 2000-2001, if there is no other impediment ingranting the said promotion in the said year.11. The Writ Petition is partly allowed, setting aside that part ofthe order of the Tribunal in granting promotion right from the year 1999-2000. Instead, the promotion of the first respondent to the post ofInspector of Police shall be granted for the year 2000-2001 with allseniority and other monetary benefits. No costs. W.P.M.P. is closed. csSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarCopy to1. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Director General of Police, Chennai-4.+1 cc to Government Pleader sr.No.27772+1 cc to Mr.T.Ayngaraprabhu, Advocate Sr.No.27648.KG(CO)dcp/30.4.07W.P.No.13846 of 2002