Advocates:
['M/S M MUTHAPPAN', '', 'T AYNGARAPRABHU', 'A TAMILRAJAN', 'R ABDUR RAHMAN']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.08.2013

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

W.P.No.23027 of 2013

Alfred Wilson

... Petitioner

Vs

1. The Secretary to Government,

Home Department,

Fort st. George, Chennai-104.

2. The Director General of Police,

Chennai-4.

... Respondents

Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondents to

consider the representation dated 30.7.2012 made by the petitioner

for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 1999-2000 at par

with his junior by including his name in the panel of Sub-Inspector

of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year

1999-2000 at appropriate place in view of the Full Bench decision

in W.A.(MD.)Nos.315 of 2010 etc. dated 27.4.2011 within a

reasonable time.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatramani,

Senior Counsel

for M/s.M.Muthappan

For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan,

Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioner entered the service as a directly recruited

Sub-Inspector of Police Category-II on 28.9.1987.

2.

The crucial date for the preparation of the panel for the

post of Inspector of Police is First June of every year. As on

1.6.1999, the petitioner was not facing any disciplinary

proceedings. Hence, his name was recommended for inclusion in the

panel of Sub-Inspectors of Police fit for promotion to the post of

Inspector for the year 1999-2000.

3.

In the meantime, after recommendation was made, a Charge

Memorandum under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate

Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in P.R.No.90/2000 dated

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20.3.2000 was issued. Hence, his name was not included in the

panel dated 12.8.2000 for promotion to the post of Inspector for

the year 1999-2000.

4.

An enquiry was held and based on the enquiry, he was

imposed with a punishment of postponement of increment for a period

of one year with cumulative effect on 30.9.2000 by the

Superintendent of Police, Chengalpet East.

5.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against

the aforesaid punishment before the Deputy Inspector General of

Police, Chengalpet Range. The Appellate Authority modified the

punishment to postponement of increment for one year without

cumulative effect by an order dated 12.12.2000.

6.

The petitioner again took up the matter by way of Review

before the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu. The Director

General of Police, Tamil Nadu passed an order dated 31.3.2001

modifying the punishment into that of censure.

7.

The petitioner was promoted on 23.1.2001 as Inspector of

Police by including his name in the panel of the year 2000-2001.

8.

The petitioner made a representation after ten years on

30.7.2012 that he should be included in the panel of the year 1999-

2000 and he should be promoted along with his juniors who were

promoted as Inspectors due to their inclusion in the panel of the

year 1999-2000 fit for promotion to the post of Inspectors.

9.

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a

direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated

30.7.2012 for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 1999-

2000 on par with his juniors by including his name in the panel of

of Sub-Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police

for the year 1999-2000 at appropriate place in view of the Full

Bench decision in W.A.(MD.)Nos.315 of 2010 etc. dated 27.4.2011

within a reasonable time.

10.

Heard both sides.

11.

The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has

vehemently contended that the punishment of censure dated 31.3.2001

cannot be a bar for promotion as held by the Full Bench of this

Court in W.A.(MD.)Nos.315 of 2010 etc. dated 27.4.2011.

12.

It was submitted that the punishment of censure was

imposed by t