Judgment :- 1. By impugned order dated 011. 1998, the Government have rejected the request of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the regular panel of Inspector of Police fit for appointment by recruitment by transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category I) for the year 1997-1998. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was issued with a charge memo in PR No.34/91 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The Enquiry Officer viz., Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Kanyakumari District held the charge as not proved. The Punishing Authority, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and dropped further action. Thereafter, the Director General of Police, Chennai, the second respondent, as the Head of the Department by invoking Rule 15(A) (i)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 issued a notice by exercising his powers of suo motto review, and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why a punishment of reduction in timescale of pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect should not be imposed. The petitioner has submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the same, the Director General of Police, Chennai by his order dated 25.04.1996 imposed punishment of "Censure" and sent the matter to the Government. The Government after expiry of two years, issued a notice dated 17.07.1998 proposing to enhance the punishment of censure into that of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted his objections. In the meanwhile, a panel for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) was drawn up for the year 1997-1998, by the Government. The name of the petitioner was omitted to be included in the abovesaid panel and by letter dated 011. 1998, his request for inclusion was rejected. 3. The petitioner submitted his objections. In the meanwhile, a panel for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) was drawn up for the year 1997-1998, by the Government. The name of the petitioner was omitted to be included in the abovesaid panel and by letter dated 011. 1998, his request for inclusion was rejected. 3. Assailing the impugned letter of the Government by which his case had been deferred for inclusion in the panel for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) for the year 1997-1998, Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority viz., the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli had dropped further action in the punishment roll on 15.08.1992 and therefore the exercise of power under Rule 15(A)(i)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rule 1955, by the Director General of Police, Chennai, the Head of the Department after nearly 2 ½ years is barred by time and therefore, the punishment of censure inflicted on the petitioner is without jurisdiction. 4. He further submitted that as per the guidelines, contained in G.O.MS No.368, a punishment of censure can be considered only for a period of one year and when the period has already expired on 23.04.1997 the reason stated in the impugned order is erroneous and therefore the rejection of the claim of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) for the year 1998 is illegal. 5. He further submitted that the crucial date for panel for eligible candidates was 11. 1997 and when the petitioner was not facing any currency of punishment or pendency of charges under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, his case ought to have been considered by the Department. According to him, mere forwarding of the punishment roll to the Government would not constitute pendency of the proceedings of a charge, when such proceedings had already culminated into a punishment of censure on 25.04.1996. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and consequently a direction be issued to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of the year 1977-1998 for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 6. Mr. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and consequently a direction be issued to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of the year 1977-1998 for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 6. Mr. S. Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent submitted that though the petitioner had reached the zone of consideration for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 1997-1998, he was having 78 rewards and two defaults. Departmental proceedings under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police State (Discipline and Appeal) Rules initiated, as sequeal to an enquiry under PSO 145 was pending against him with the Government and therefore, his name was not included in the panel, approved in G.O.Ms.No.1508, Home (Pol.II) Department dated 011. 1998. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that though the Director General of Police, Chennai has imposed a punishment of censure on 25.04.1996 the same was sent for review to the Government and the Government in letter dated 17.07.1998 did not agree with the punishment of censure and issued a show cause notice for enhancing the punishment into that of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Therefore, he submitted that when the Government have exercised its suo motto power and issued a show cause notice, the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 3 (b) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules are said to be pending and that it has not reached its finality. In such an event, it is open to the Government to consider the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings for overlooking his case for promotion in the year 1997-1998, when the panel was approved. He also submitted that the Government can exercise the power of suo motto review at any time and there is no limitation. For the above reasons, he prayed that the impugned order has to be sustained. 8. Heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader and perused the materials available on record. 9. The charge levelled against the petitioner in PR No.34/91 is as follows:- "Highly reprehensible conduct in having created false records as if Tr.Gopi and 4 others concerned in Arumanai Station were arrested by the deliquent on 9. 9. The charge levelled against the petitioner in PR No.34/91 is as follows:- "Highly reprehensible conduct in having created false records as if Tr.Gopi and 4 others concerned in Arumanai Station were arrested by the deliquent on 9. 1989 at Alancholai Bus stand whereas these persons were actually arrested by Inspector of Police, Thiru Kamaraj on the afternoon of 38. 1989." 10. Though the Punishing Authority viz., the Deputy Inspector General of Police has dropped further action in punishment roll, the Head of the Department, viz., the Director General of Police by invoking Rule 15(A)(i)(ii) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1955 exercising his suo motto powers and imposed a punishment of censure. Perusal of the material on record shows that the list of eligible candidates for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) was prepared by the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the same was communicated to the Government under Lr.No.41/D/DP-A2/96 dated 97. But the impugned order shows that the panel for 1997-98 was approved in G.O.MS.No.1508 ..dated 011. 1998. When the punishment roll was forwarded by the Director General of Police, Chennai for review, the Government in Lr.No.86808/Pol.IV/97-10 did not agree with the punishment of censure issued by the second respondent and consequently issued a show cause notice proposing to enhance the punishment of censure to stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. There cannot be any dispute regarding the power of the Government to exercise suo motto review at any time and in the case on hand, the show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, before the panel of Deputy of Superintendent of police in the year 1997-98 was approved by the Government. When the proposal to enhance the penalty is pending consideration with the Government it cannot be said that the disciplinary proceedings have reached its finality, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the punishment of censure was imposed on 25.04.1996, the same was sought to be enhanced and therefore, this Court is of the view that there is continuity of the disciplinary proceedings, initiated under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. Though the punishment of censure was imposed on 25.04.1996, the same was sought to be enhanced and therefore, this Court is of the view that there is continuity of the disciplinary proceedings, initiated under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. Till the statutory Authority gives a quietus to the disciplinary proceedings by modifying or enhancing or reducing or dropping the proceedings, it cannot be said that the disciplinary proceedings has come to an end. In such a view of the matter, as show cause notice dated 16.02.1995 was pending consideration in respect of a disciplinary proceedings stated supra, rejection of the Government to include the petitioners name in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 1997-98 is not manifestly illegal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.