JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings G.O.(2D)No.401, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 01.08.2013 confirming the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings C.No.104553/AP.2(3)/2010, dated 20.01.2011 modifying the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.D1(2)/Appeal.11/09, dated 23.10.2009 confirming the order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings in F order, dated 19.05.2009 and to quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Head Constable with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the first respondent vide G.O.(2D)No.401, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 01.08.2013, confirming the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings, dated 20.01.2011, modifying the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings, dated 23.10.2009, confirming the order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings, dated 19.05.2009, and to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Head Constable with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted.

2. Heard, Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Linga Durai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts, that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition, are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable Grade-II on 24.05.1999. He was promoted as Police Constable Grade-1 on 24.05.2010. While the petitioner was working as Police Constable Grade-II, the fourth respondent issued a charge memo on 09.08.2008 alleging that he was arrested in connection with a criminal case lodged by his ex-wife for dowry harassment. After receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the fourth respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and based on the Enquiry Officer's report holding that the charge against the petitioner stood proved, the fourth respondent by order, dated 19.05.2009, imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. It is admitted that the punishment was imposed after issuing second show cause notice and furnishing the copy of the enquiry report.

3.2. The order of the fourth respondent was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the third respondent, who rejected the appeal, by impugned order, dated 23.10.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision/review petition before the second respondent, who in turn, by impugned proceedings, dated 20.01.2011, modified the punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect into that of black mark. Even thereafter, the petitioner preferred a mercy petition before the first respondent, who rejected the request of the petitioner, by impugned order vide G.O. (2D)No.401, dated 01.08.2013. Challenging the orders of respondents, the above Writ Petition is filed.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds in the Writ Petition, in the course of argument submitted that the criminal case registered at the instance of his ex-wife ended in acquittal and that the respondents cannot sustain the order of punishment without any independent enquiry into the charges or the offences stated to have been committed by the petitioner against his wife. Stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner is not in connection with the petitioner's official duty, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted further that the charges cannot be independently proceeded, as the Criminal Court has given a verdict acquitting the petitioner from the charges. The learned