The Director General of Police, Chennai and The Commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Egmore, Chennai vs K.R. Anbu and The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The State has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order of the State Administrative Tribunal

dated 9.12.97 passed in O.A.No. 5002/97 directing the first petitioner to consider the case of the first respondent for inclusion in the panel of

Sub-Inspectors of Police for the year 1995-96 for promotion as Inspector of Police without reference to and without taking into consideration the

P.R.No.19/94 dated 8.4.96 and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately with all attendant benefits from the date on

which his immediate junior was promoted. It is also observed that promotion so made shall however be subject to review after final orders are

passed in the proceeding P.R.No.19/94.

According to the first respondent, since the incident with reference to which the charge memo came to be issued in April 1994 related to the

year 1988, in view of the inordinate delay in the initiation of the disciplinary action, applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme

Court reported in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, ), the first respondent''s claim for inclusion in the panel of promotion to the

post of Inspector of Police ought to have been made by the petitioners. The said submission of the first respondent weighed with the Tribunal

which resulted in the passing of the order impugned in the writ petition.

In this context, it is relevant to refer to G.O.Ms.No. 368 dated 18.10.93 which specifically provides that in cases where specific charges have

been framed or charge sheet has been filed in criminal cases, promotions/appointments of such persons should be deferred till the proceedings are

concluded. When reference to the said G.O. is made to the facts of the case on hand, it will have to be held that as on the date when the panel for

the year 1995-96 for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police was prepared, there was a charge pending against the petitioner in proceeding

No. 19/94. In such circumstances, G.O.Ms.No.368 gets squarely attracted and in which event, until the said proceedings are concluded there was

no scope for including the name of the first respondent in the panel for 1995-96.

When the judgment relied upon by the first respondent reported in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, is considered, we find

that, that was a case where in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case their Lordships directed the concerned authority to include the

name of the delinquent therein in the panel of promotion and also accord necessary promotion. Their Lordships have stated that the rules and

practice normally followed in such cases are different. Therefore, when the G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 18.10.1993 specifically provides that during

the pendency of the charge sheet the person cannot be considered for promotion, there was no scope at all to issue a direction contrary to the

stipulation contained in the said G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 18.10.93. It cannot also be held that there was inordinate delay in the initiation of the

disciplinary action against the petitioner so as to hold that ignoring the pendency of the charges there should have been a direction for inclusion of

the first respondent''s name in the panel of promotion. It is not in dispute that with reference to the incident which took place on 2.4.88 an enquiry

was ordered to be held by the Revenue Divisional Officer who submitted his report on 12.1.93. After the receipt of the said report dated 12.1.93

it is on record that the proceedings were initiated on 8.4.94. Therefore, it cannot be held that the period between January 1993 and April 1994

was so very inordinate to hold that the delay should be held in favour of the first respondent to grant the relief to include his name in the panel of the

year 1995-96. Therefore, looked at from any angle, we are not able to sustain the order of the Tribunal in having directed the first petitioner to

include the name of the first respondent in the panel of Sub-Inspectors of Police for the year 1995-96 for promotion to the post of Inspector of

Police without reference to and without taking into consideration the pending disciplinary proceedings in P.R.No.19/94.

Further, it has been brought to our notice that the first respondent was specifically imposed with the punishment of reduction in pay by two

stages for two years without cumulative effective by order dated 28.12.1998 which is a major penalty under Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services

(Disciplinary & Appeal)Rules. Therefore, even going by the order of the Tribunal, now, since the final order of punishment have also been imposed

on the first respondent, on that ground as well, there was no scope for including the name of the petitioner in the panel of the year 1995-96.

6.We are also informed that the first respondent has been subsequently promoted in the year 2001. In such circumstances, the order of the

Tribunal being not sustainable, the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, W.M.P.No.458 of 1999 is also

closed. No costs.