AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Suguna, J.—The writ petitioner has initially filed O.A. No. 1026 of 1996 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,Chennai,
for regularisation of his service in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police in terms of the order passed in O.A No. 1565 of 1995 dated 13.11.1995
and the same has been transferred to the file of this Hon''ble Court and re-numbered as W.P. No. 32507 of 2005.
Originally the writ petitioner was directly recruited as a Grade I Police Constable with effect from 15.04.1974. Subsequently, he was promoted
as a head constable with effect from 15.03.1982 and he was promoted as a Sub Inspector of Police as out of turn promotion with effect from
26.06.1987 on a temporary basis. In the year 1989, though an order of reversion had been issued, by virtue of the interim order of stay granted by
the Tribunal in O.A. No: 820 of 1989 dated 13.06.1989, which was subsequently continued by an order dated 31.08.1989, it was not given
effect to. To say in other words, the petitioner and other similarly placed persons were continuing in the same post of Sub Inspector of Police by
virtue of the interim stay granted by the Tribunal. Subsequently, a batch of cases viz. O.A. Nos. 1565 of 1995, etc. were disposed of by the Tamil
Nadu Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 13.11.1995 and as per that order the Tribunal directed that, the head constables who have been
acting as Sub Inspectors of Police for a period of six years and above as on the date of the impugned memorandum without any break or without
any black mark or without any punishment whatsoever shall be regularized as Sub Inspector of Police and seniority shall be fixed according to the
Rules. Subsequent to the orders of the Tribunal, the Director General of Police has issued a memorandum dated 26.01.1996 in Memo No.
554/NGB.I (2)/95. Paragraph 9 of that memorandum states that the police personnel who are eligible for screening by the Range Promotion
Board but are currently under suspension or against whom disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3 (b) of the T.N.P.S.S. (D & A) Rules of 1955 are
now pending, screening should be deferred and their cases should be considered after the disposal of such proceedings. In other words, the
memorandum states that against the police personnel, who are eligible to appear before the Range Promotion Board for screening, if any
disciplinary proceeding is pending their cases has to be deferred and their cases can be considered only after the disposal of such proceedings.
Basing on this memorandum, inspite of the specific orders of the Tribunal, the petitioner''s service was not regularised in the cadre of Sub Inspector
of Police with effect from 26.06.1987. Subsequently, only with effect from 13.02.1995, petitioner''s service was regularized in the cadre of Sub
Inspector of Police. Hence, he has filed the above Original Application seeking regularization of service with effect from 26.06.1987 based on the
orders of the Tribunal dated 13.11.1995 in O.A. No: 1565 of 1995, etc. batch.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even as per the memorandum issued by the Director General of Police dated 26.01.1996,
the same has been issued giving effect to the orders of the Tribunal passed in O.A. NO: 1565 of 1995, etc. dated 13.11.1995. As per the orders
of the Tribunal, the head constables who have been acting as Sub Inspector of Police for a period of six years and above, on the date of the
impugned memorandum, without any black mark or without any punishment whatsoever their services should be regularised in the cadre of Sub
Inspector of Police and their seniority has to be fixed according to the Rules. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the date of the
memorandum which was impugned in the batch of Original Application is dated 22.02.1995 and thus, based on the orders of the Tribunal, the
service of the petitioner in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police has to be regularised with effect from the date of his original promotion namely with
effect from 1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the condition laid down in the above said order of the Tribunal for
regularisation is that as on 21.02.1995 the concerned person should have served for a period of six years as a Sub Inspector without any break or
without any black mark or without any punishment whatsoever. But overlooking this criteria, the Director General of Police has issued a
memorandum dated 26.01.1996 wherein one more condition has been added i.e. if any disciplinary proceeding was pending against the individual
he is not eligible for screening by the Range Promotion Board. Since a charge memo dated 2.7.1992 was pending against the petitioner, his
services were not regularized and he was given promotion only with effect from 13.02.1995. As such, according to the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, the impugned order/memorandum of the first respondent herein is contrary to the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and
hence, the same is liable to be set aside and consequentially, petitioner''s service in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police has to be regularised
taking into account his earlier promotion.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that even as per the order of the Tribunal also the head
constables who are acting as Sub Inspector of Police for a period of six years and above as on 21.02.1995 without any black mark or without any
punishment are alone would be eligible for consideration and the term punishment includes even pendency of disciplinary proceedings also. As
such, since a charge memo has been issued to the petitioner on 2.7.1982, as per the Tribunal''s order also his service in the cadre of Sub Inspector
cannot be regularised with effect from 26.06.1987. That apart, the learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that when a disciplinary
proceeding is pending against a Government Servant even as per the normal rule, his case cannot be considered for promotion till the disposal of
the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned memorandum passed by the Director General of Police is not contrary to the orders of the
Tribunal and hence, the O.A./ W.P. has to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Admittedly, the applicant/writ petitioner is also one of the applicant in the batch of O.
As which was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 13.1.2005. In that order, the Tribunal has directed that the services of the head
constables who have been acting as Sub Inspector of Police for a period of six years and above as on 21.02.1995 without any black mark and
without any punishment shall be regularised as Sub Inspector of Police and their seniority will be fixed according to the Rules. The respondent
herein who has passed the impugned memorandum is also a party to the said proceedings before the Tribunal. That apart as against the order
passed in the above said O.A. neither any writ petition has been filed nor any clarification has been sought for by the Department. As such, the
order passed in the above O.A. has become final.
As per the orders of the Tribunal only three conditions are required to be fulfilled by a head constable to be promoted as a Sub Inspector of
Police viz. 1. he should have been acting as a Sub Inspector of Police for a period of more than six years or more as on 21.02.1995; 2. he should
not have any black mark and 3. he should not have suffered any other punishment. These are the three conditions which are required for
regularisation of the service in the cadre of Sub Inspector. As far as the petitioner is concerned, as on 21.02.1995 neither there was any black
mark nor any punishment has been imposed upon him. He has been issued with a charge memo dated 27.02.1992. But by way of a memorandum
dated 26.01.1996, the Director General of Police has stated that against those head constables, who are the beneficiaries of the said O.A., if any
disciplinary proceeding is pending, their cases has to be deferred and it can be considered only after the disposal of the said disciplinary
proceedings. Based on this memorandum only, the service of the writ petitioner has not been regularised in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police.
When there is a specific order of the Tribunal as stated above, by way of implementing it, the respondent cannot introduce one more condition
which has not been prescribed by the Tribunal in its order and thereby the applicants in the O.A. cannot be denied of their benefits that flows from
the order of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1994 26 ATC 448 (S. Nagaraj and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and
Ors.) had held that an order of the competent Court, even though erroneous, mistaken or improperly obtained cannot be substituted or clarified or
modified by the executing authority according to their own understanding of the order. In this case, the Department had neither sought for a
clarification from the Tribunal nor had filed an appeal against that order. Therefore, it is very clear that the order of the Tribunal has to be
implemented as it is and no new condition can be imposed by the respondents. On the facts of the case on hand, a charge memo has been issued
to the petitioner on 2.7.1992 for an occurrence which took place in January 1990 and final order has been passed on 13.10.1997 imposing a
punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years i.e. punishment has been imposed after the lapse of 7 years.
As per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, also when there is undue delay in the
finalisation of disciplinary proceedings, the delinquent is entitled for promotion.
Hence, on the above stated facts and on the settled legal position, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of his
services in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police basing on the Tribunal''s order dated 13.11.1995 passed in O.A. No. 1565 of 1995, batch and
also for other consequential benefits. This writ petition is allowed as prayed for without any orders as to the costs.