The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the right to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and the relevance of delay and laches in seeking relief through writ actions.

ORDER :

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the Respondent to consider and pass orders on the Representation made by the Petitioner on 15.6.2019 for Implementation of the Punishment as Women Inspector of Police instead of Women Sub-Inspector of Police based on the Modified order passed by the Additional Director General of Police (L & O) dated 23.7.2010 and grant her notional Promotion and as well as reduction in the Rank and also consider her claim for Promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cat- I in view of the fact that the punishment was over as early as 2013 and grant the petitioner all consequential service, monetary benefits along with Interest @ 12 percentage till the date of disbursement within a limited time.

2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition at the age of 63 years and after a lapse of 5 years from the date of her retirement. The petitioner entered in service as Grade-I Police Constable and promoted up to the level of Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 28.02.2014. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.44400/2006 for a direction to direct the respondents to consider her claim for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 2004 and promote her as Inspector of Police with all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with the petitioner’s junior.

3. With reference to the said prayer, this Court passed final orders in W.P.No.44400 of 2006 on 27.04.2012 as follows:

“8. It is also relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in DELHI JAL BOARD VS. MAHINDER SINGH reported in 2000 [7] SCC 210, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in paragraph 5 as follows:-

“5............. The right to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, provided a person is eligible and is in the zone of consideration. The sealed cover procedure permits the question of his promotion to be kept in abeyance till the result of any pending disciplinary inquiry. But the findings of the disciplinary inquiry exonerating the officer would have to be given effect to as they obviously relate back to the date on which the charges are framed. If the disciplinary inquiry ended in his favour, it is as if the officer had not been subjected to any disciplinary inquiry. The sealed cover procedure was envisaged under the rules to give benefit of any assessment made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in favour of such an officer, if he had been found fit for promotion and if he was later exonerated in the disciplinary inquiry which was pending at the time when DPC met. The mere fact that by the time the disciplinary proceedings in the first inquiry ended in his favour and by the time the sealed cover was opened to give effect to it, another Departmental enquiry was stated by the Department, would not, in our view, come in the way of giving him the benefit of the assessment by the first Departmental promotion Committee in his favour in the anterior selection...................”

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court and the Division Bench of this court are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of inclusion of her name in the promotion panel for the year 2004 merely on the ground of contemplation of a charge memo to be issued against her. It is relevant to note that there is absolutely no specific charge was pending against the petitioner on the crucial date of the drawal of the promotion panel and on the basis of the charge memo issued subsequently, an enquiry was conducted during the pendency of this writ petition and the petitioner has been exonerated from the charge as per the order dated 09.04.2010 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that there is