IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR AND WMP NO. 12993 OF 2016 D.Murugesan ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceeding issued by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.117237/GB 2(2)/ 2014 dated 21.03.2015 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on inclusion of his name in the panel for the year 2012-13 with crucial date 01.06.2012 on par with his juniors with all consequential and other attendant benefits including arrears of salary.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Jayamalan For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG, assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha Spl. Govt. Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the endorsement dated 21.03.2015 issued by the second respondent, by which the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), by inclusion of his name in the panel for the years 2011–12, 2012–13, and 2013–14, was rejected.

2. While serving as an Inspector of Police, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No.18780 of 2014 before this Court, seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by inclusion of his name in the panel for the year 2012–13. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 13.01.2015, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents for consideration of his claim. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner submitted a representation, which was considered by the second respondent, culminating in the issuance of the impugned endorsement.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the panel years

2012–13 and 2013–14, the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police ought not to have been rejected merely on the ground that an order of punishment was in currency, particularly when the subsequent charge memo was issued only after the crucial date. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.30109 of 2013 (disposed of on 24.02.2015) and the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.

No.217 of 2020 (reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Madras 1729).

4. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submitted that as on the crucial date, the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner was in force and that a charge memo had also been issued against him for misconduct. Therefore, according to the learned State Counsel, the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of DSP. It was contended that the second respondent, having taken into account all relevant factors, rightly issued the impugned endorsement, which does not call for interference.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. The petitioner does not press his claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the panel year 2011–12, since an order of punishment was admittedly in currency as on the crucial date, namely 01.06.2011.

The dispute is confined to the panel year 2012–13 and 2013-14. The petitioner contends that two punishments were imposed on him:

(i) an order dated 07.07.2009 imposing punishment of postponement of increment for two years with cumulative effect, which came to an end on 06.07.2011; and (ii) an order dated 29.01.2010 imposing punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect, which concluded on

28.01.2012.

Both punishments had thus ceased to operate prior to the