IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.No.32534 of 2016 Eswaran, S/o. Iyyanar, No. 5/171-A, Angammal Colony, New Bus Stand, Salem-9.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Director General of Police, D.G.P. Office, Chennai - 600 004.

..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 07.07.2015 in G.O.Ms. No. 527 Home (Pol.1A) Department on the file of 1st respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioners: Mr.A.Kalaivanan For Respondents: Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.R.L.Karthika Government Advocate *****

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order dated 07.07.2015 bearing G.O.Ms.No.527, Home (Pol.1A) Department. By the said order, the petitioner, who had been temporarily promoted as Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre), was reverted to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police (Category-I) with immediate effect.

2. The petitioner, while serving as Additional Superintendent of Police, was promoted to the rank of Superintendent of Police, and such promotion was sanctioned against a vacant post vide G.O.Ms.No.518 dated 10.07.2012.

3. While the petitioner was working in the promoted post, he was issued a show cause notice calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police, on the ground as on the crucial date that a charge sheet had been filed against him before the trial Court in a criminal case. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice. However, the respondent rejected the same and passed the impugned order.

4. Mr. A. Kalaivanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order was passed by invoking Rule 4(a) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules” for the sake of brevity, convenience, and clarity). It was further contended that the said Rules came into effect only from 24.02.2014 and, therefore, invocation of the said Rules retrospectively is impermissible in law. Consequently, the order of reversion is arbitrary, discriminatory, and liable to be set aside.

5. In response, Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that on the crucial date, a charge sheet had already been filed against the petitioner in a criminal case. He further submitted that, as per Rule 4(a) of the said Rules read with G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.1993, and Government Letter dated 07.10.2005, it is specifically provided that where specific charges have been framed or a charge sheet has been filed in a criminal case against a member of service, the promotion or appointment of such person shall be deferred till the conclusion of such proceedings. In the present case, as the criminal proceedings before the trial Court have not yet concluded, the promotion of the petitioner ought to have been deferred on the crucial date. Taking into account the above facts, it was contended that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the materials available on record have been duly considered.

7. The first respondent, vide order dated 12.07.2012, promoted the petitioner to the post of Superintendent of Police (Category-I) against a sanctioned vacant post, subject to the outcome of SLP Nos.447 and 448 of 2008 filed by the State. Admittedly, SLP Nos.447 and 448 of 2008 filed by the State were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27.02.2017. The impugned order has been passed by invoking amended Rule 4(a) of the said Rules, which reads as follows:

“SCHEDULE – VII [See Rule 4(a)]

PART-A I. Procedure for preparation of appr