SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 4102

High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
Jayakumar, Formerly Inspector of Police, Dindigal
Versus
The Secretary to Government & Another
W.P. No. 212 of 2012
Decided On : 12-12-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K. Venkatramani, Senior Counsel for M. Muthappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S. Navaneetham, Additional Government Pleader.

Exoneration from charges entitles an individual to be considered for promotion and attendant benefits.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Promotion Claim - G.O.Ms.No.598, Home (Pol-II) Department dated 02.07.2010 - TNPSS (D & A) Rules - Exoneration of Charges - Consideration for Promotion - Tamil Nadu State Government Preparation of Panel for Promotion Consolidated Instructions - Show Cause Notice - Fundamental Right to Consideration by Departmental Promotion Committee

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, sought promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cat-I for the year 2009-2010. His claim was deferred due to pending charges. He was exonerated of the charges, but his promotion was not considered. He filed a Writ of Mandamus seeking promotion and consequential benefits.

Finding of the Court:

The Court directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's promotion, as his exoneration entitled him to be considered for promotion and all attendant benefits.

Issues: Deferred Promotion, Exoneration of Charges, Consideration for Promotion, Denial of Promotion despite Exoneration

Ratio Decidendi: Exoneration from charges entitles an individual to be considered for promotion and attendant benefits. The denial of promotion post-exoneration is not valid in the eye of the law.

Final Decision: The Court directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's promotion and grant him all attendant and monetary benefits within eight weeks.

Judgment

1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents to consider his claim for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cat-I by including his name in the panel for the year 2009-2010 as communicated by the First Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.598, Home (Pol-II) Department dated 02.07.2010 and to promote him as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cat-I and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with his junior.

2. The Germane Facts of the Writ Petition:

The Petitioner, is a directly recruited Sub-Inspector of Police and appointed to service on 28.09.1987. He was promoted as Inspector of Police on 23.11.1998 by dint of hard work and coupled with his seniority. He had received 75 rewards.

3. The stand of the Petitioner is that he attained sufficient seniority and merit for consideration of his claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cat-I by including his name in the panel for the year 2009-2010. The crucial date for preparation of the panel was 01.06.2009 and the date of consideration is on 02.07.2010. Further more, the First Respondent/ Secretary to Government, Home (Pol.II) Department, Chennai-9 published the temporary panel for Inspector of Police fit for promotion by recruitment by transfer of service as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Cat-I) for the year 2009-2010 approved in G.O.Ms.No.598, Home (Pol-II) Department dated 02.07.2010 in and by which his name was not included. However, junior by name Tr.Rajavelu was included in SI.No.110 and he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cat-I.

4. In this connection, the plea of the Petitioner is that he was not communicated with the reason for his non-inclusion in the panel for Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cat-I for the year 2009-2010.

5. According to the Petitioner his claim for promotion was deferred on the ground that he was facing a charge memo in PR No.3/NIB/2008 dated 17.08.2008 issued under Rule 3(b) of the TNPSS (D & A) Rules. He served as Inspector of Police in NIB CID, Dindigul Unit from 16.06.2006 to 07.12.2007. While he was on casual leave on 13.10.2007 and 14.10.2007, there was some allegation levelled against his subordinates who alleged to have intercepted a vehicle said to have been in possession of Ganja and they failed to register a case in time and on next day, the case was registered. Moreover, the allegation against the Petitioner was that he informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police about the alleged seizure on 13.10.2007 and 14.10.2007 but failed to instruct his subordinates to register a case. It is also alleged that the Petitioner connived with his subordinate one C.Vijayabaskar, Sub-Inspector of Police for his failure to register the case immediately on 13.10.2007 itself for the seizure of the vehicle with 380 kgs of Ganja at Rasipuram area in Salem District.

6. It transpires that on receipt of charge memo by the Petitioner, he submitted a detailed reply denying the charges. A common enquiry was conducted against the Petitioner and three other subordinates namely, Sub-Inspector of Police and 2 Head Constables. The Enquiry Officer viz., Additional Superintendent of Police, SIT, CB CID, Coimbatore conducted an enquiry by examining two witnesses on the side of the prosecution and marked 11 exhibits. The Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 10.03.2008 denying the charges. However, the Enquiry Officer finally held that charges were proved against the Petitioner and submitted a proved minute to the Disciplinary Authority on the last date of his superannuation on 31.05.2010. By that time, the panel for the promotional post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cat-I for the year 2009-2010 was published on 02.07.2010. Further, his claim was deferred on the ground that he was facing formulated charges under Rule 3(b) of the TNPSS (D & A) Rules.

7. The Petitioner was furnished with the copy of









































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top