V. Jegannathan vs The Superintendent of Police

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—This Writ Petition, at the instance of a Head Constable, seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to promote him to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police, in view of his completion of 25 years of regular service.

The Facts:

The petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 25 May, 1988. He was promoted, thereafter, as Grade I Police Constable on 15 April, 2000. The petitioner was, once again, given promotion as Head Constable on 15 April, 2006.

The petitioner was involved in series of cases of desertion. He was given a charge memo at least on three occasions on account of his unauthorised absence without taking leave. The petitioner was given punishment by reduction of increment by two stage for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The period of absence was treated as leave without pay. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his juniors were promoted as Special Sub Inspector of Police, after completing 25 years of service. However, he was not promoted. The petitioner submitted a representation on 15 July, 2013, requesting the Director General of Police and the respondent to consider his case for promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police. The inaction on the part of the respondent made him to file this Writ Petition.

The respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit, wherein it was contended that the petitioner was in unauthorised absence for a period of 425 days. The said period was subsequently treated as leave without pay. The petitioner was punished for desertion on two occasions. According to the respondent, the petitioner failed to fulfill the condition regarding ten years of continuous service as Head Constable and as such, it is not possible to promote him to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police.

Submissions:

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent regularized the period of unauthorised absence and as such, said period of 425 days has to be taken into account while computing the period of eligible service. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner completed ten years of continuous service as on 01 June, 2013, in case 425 days is also taken into account.

The learned Government Advocate justified the stand taken by the respondent in his counter-affidavit.

Analysis:

The petitioner was recruited as Grade II Police Constable on 25 May, 1988 and he was placed with the Armed Reserve Police Force at Madurai. He was upgraded as Grade I Police Constable on 15 April, 2000 and thereafter, as Head Constable on 15 April, 2006, after taking into account 592 days of desertion from 10 June, 1995 to 22 January, 1997. The petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police, in case he completes ten years of continuous service in the category of Head Constable.

The petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on 15 April, 2006. The petitioner is a chronic deserter. The petitioner was in unauthorised absence from 10 June, 1995 to 22 January, 1997. It is true that 425 days of unauthorised absence was subsequently treated as leave without pay. The petitioner now wanted the said period of 425 days also to be treated as duty period. The fact that the period of desertion was treated as leave without pay would not go to show that he was in service during the said period and that he completed ten years of eligible service.

In order to claim promotion, the Head Constable must complete 10 years of regular service. Regular service means actual service by discharging duty and not technical service by regularizing the deserted period.

The respondent, in his counter-affidavit, very clearly stated that the petitioner would be eligible for upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police on 01 May, 2016. The counter-affidavit is so clear that the petitioner is yet to complete ten years of eligible service. Such being the case, the petitioner has no justifiable claim for promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police. I am, therefore, not inclined to direct the respondent to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police.

In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.