The charges against the petitioners were quashed, and there was no impediment against the petitioners in granting the relief. The court directed the respondents to finalize the 'C' list on the basis of the marks secured by the petitioners in the range promotion board for the year 2004 and give promotion to the petitioners with retrospective effect on par with other selected candidates, according to their original seniority, and to pay all monetary benefits to the petitioners based on such promotions.

1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent passed in RC No.A1/1416/2005, dated 22.07.2005 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to finalize the C list on the basis of the marks secured by the petitioners in the range promotion board for the year 2004 and to grant such other further relief by this Court on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have entered into the service as Grade-II Police Constables in the Chengelpet East, Kancheepuram District, Armed Reserve and subsequently, they were promoted as Grade-I Police Constables. After successfully completing their probation, they were qualified to participate before the range promotion board for their next promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve). The petitioners had participated in the range promotion board, that was conducted in the year 2003, however they were not selected, since they could not secure the minimum cut-off marks for the selection. As per the Service Rules, every year range promotion board is convened for the preparation of C list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the Director General of Police, Chennai, the first respondent herein had issued a Memorandum in R.C.No.69684/NGBV(2)/2004, dated 12.01.2005 convening the range promotion board for drawal of C list of Head Constable (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 2004. As per the Memorandum, there were 12 vacancies available in Chengelpet Range. The Superintendent of Police Chengalpet East, Kancheepuram, who was the Chairman of the range promotion board issued a Memo in R.C.No.A3/1648/05, dated 24.02.2005 listing the eligible Head Constables for the written test and for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (AR).

3. According to the petitioners, nearly 126 Head Constables, eligible for promotion were allowed to participate in the range promotion board. The petitioners, who attained sufficient seniority also participated in the written test held on 01.03.2005 and secured pass marks and were eligible for the next stage of selection. After the written test, 44 Head Constables became eligible to participate in the drill and Viva Tests and the list of selected candidates also included the names of the petitioners. Mr.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners appeared for the oral test and also drill test, after they had gone through the written test.

However, the result of the selected head constables was not published, by the Chairman of the Range Promotion Board and the petitioners herein subsequently came to know that there was certain allegations raised against the petitioners, by way of anonymous petitions, stating that the petitioners had tampered with their Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) in order to secure high marks for their past performance. The allegation was that the petitioners, as Head Constables with the help of the office staff corrected the Annual Confidential Reports, after having removed the earlier Annual Confidential Report, whereby they had been given lesser grading. It was also alleged that new Annual Confidential Reports with highest grading were replaced by them. The petitioners and others were issued Charge Memos under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules (herein after referred to as TNPSS Rules), dated 30.06.2005 for the alleged delinquency of tampering with their Annual Confidential Reports, in order to secure the highest marks for the past performance.

4. Mr.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the charge memos were issued against the petitioners without any basis, in order to prevent the petitioners from getting their