Judgment :- 1. The petitioner initially entered the service as Police Constable on 04.12.62 in the erstwhile Malabar Special Police III Battalion. Later on, he was transferred to District Armed Reserve, Vellore District in the year 1968. He was further promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1985. While so, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 in PR.No.136/97 for gross dereliction of duty in losing the magazine of revolver and three ammunition on 13.12.96, when he was sent for escort duty for three central prisoners to 17th Court in Chennai in Police Van TN 23-G-0036 and also for another charge of gross dereliction of duty in not preferring any complaint at police station about the loss of magazine and 3 rounds of ammunitions and delay in lodging the complaint on 27.12.96, though he was directed on 25.12.96 to lodge a complaint. Subsequently, he was found guilty of the above said charges, for which he was imposed with a punishment of postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the punishment was imposed on 20.04.98, the crucial date falls in the month of June every year. After the completion of the currency of punishment, the non inclusion of his name in the panel for the year 1998-99, is unlawful and unjustified. Further, he submitted that when the 2nd respondent published C list of Sub-Inspectors of Police (AR) fit for promotion as Inspector of Police (AR) for the year 1997-98 in RC. No. 49386/NGBI(1)/98, dated 03.08.98, the name of the petitioner was not included, while including the petitioners junior by name A.Kuppurai as Sl.No.13. The reason for non inclusion of the name of the petitioner was due to a punishment suffered by the petitioner in PR No.136/97, dated 20.04.98. The punishment of postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect was awarded being trivial in nature, that punishment should not have been taken as ground for denying promotion. Once again, the panel for the year 1998-99 was prepared and published on 11.08.99, but the name of the petitioner was not included on the ground that the punishment suffered by the petitioner was not yet over. Once again, the panel for the year 1998-99 was prepared and published on 11.08.99, but the name of the petitioner was not included on the ground that the punishment suffered by the petitioner was not yet over. Again, the name of the petitioner was not considered in the panel for the year 1999-2000 on the ground that he has crossed 55 years of age as on 01.01.99. Hence, it was contended that the said reason for non inclusion of the petitioners name in the panel for the year 1998-99, is unjust, illegal, irregular and unsustainable in law. On that basis, prayed for inclusion of his name. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was dealt with under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 in PR No.136/97 for gross dereliction of duty in losing the magazine of revolver and three ammunition on 13.12.96 when he was sent for escort duty for 3 central prisoners to 17th Court, Chennai, for which, he was imposed with a punishment of postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Therefore, his name was not considered for inclusion in the C list of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Armed Reserve) fit for promotion as Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) for the year 1998-99. Again, the petitioner was also dealt with under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, for criminal misconduct in having committed temporary misappropriation of Government money of Rs.1,000/- on 10.12.97 by forging the signature of PC 585, who was not existing in the Armed Reserve, Vellore in collusion with his platoon writer Naik 163 Kumar. Therefore, again, he was found guilty in PR.172/98, dated 03.03.99 and the punishment of postponement of increment with cumulative effect by Superintendent of Police, Vellore, was imposed against him. As per the G.O.Ms.No.368, P&AR Department, dated 18.10.93, the performance of the individuals for 5 years prior to the crucial date should be considered.Accordingly, while reviewing the performance of the applicant, his performance were found to be not satisfactory. On another occasion, the petitioner committed delinquency of collecting Rs.20/-from each constable of 5th platoon Armed Reserve Vellore from 4/94 T.A., for which he was awarded the punishment of pay reduction in PR 139/94 and in the year 1995, the petitioner suffered another punishment of reprimand in PR.170/95. On another occasion, the petitioner committed delinquency of collecting Rs.20/-from each constable of 5th platoon Armed Reserve Vellore from 4/94 T.A., for which he was awarded the punishment of pay reduction in PR 139/94 and in the year 1995, the petitioner suffered another punishment of reprimand in PR.170/95. In the year 1998, the petitioner suffered another punishment in PR.68/98 for his absence from 18.01.98 to 19.01.98, for which, he was imposed with a punishment of censure. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot ask for promotion, as the name of the petitioner cannot be included in view of G.O.Ms.No.368, dated 18.10.93. On that basis, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. The petitioner suffered punishment from the year 1994 to 1998 and he was was dealt with in PR.139/94, for having committed the delinquency of collecting Rs.20/- from each constable of 5th platoon Armed Reserve Vellore from 4/94 T.A., for which he was awarded the punishment of pay reduction. Once again, in the year 1995, he suffered another departmental proceedings for wrongly allowing two Police Constables to have the ammunition in the shirt pocket while on escort duty, for which, he was awarded the punishment of reprimand in PR.170/95. Thirdly, the petitioner was dealt with under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 in PR No.136/97 for gross dereliction of duty in losing the magazine of revolver and three ammunition on 13.12.96 when he was sent for escort duty for 3 central prisoners to 17th Court, Chennai, for which, he was imposed with a punishment of postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect and another dereliction of duty in not preferring any complaint at Police station about the loss of magazine and 3 rounds ammunitions. After perusing the materials available on record, the enquiry officer found him guilty. On that basis, the disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment of postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect in PR.136/97, dated 20.04.98. Since the above said punishment dated 20.04.98 was in currency, his name was not included in the C list of Sub-Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve fit for promotion as Inspector of Police. On that basis, the disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment of postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect in PR.136/97, dated 20.04.98. Since the above said punishment dated 20.04.98 was in currency, his name was not included in the C list of Sub-Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve fit for promotion as Inspector of Police. Unfortunately, the petitioner again gave room for another disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for criminal misconduct in having committed temporary misappropriation of Government money of Rs.1,000/-on 10.12.97 by forging the signature of PC 585, who was not working in the Armed Reserve, Vellore in collusion with his platoon writer Naik 163 Kumar. The disciplinary authority, on the proved minutes, found him guilty and awarded the punishment of postponement of increment with cumulative effect in PR.172/98, dated 03.03.99. 6. Since the petitioner constantly facing various punishments from 1994 till 1998, in view of G.O.Ms.No.368, dated 18.10.93, which says that the inclusion of name of a Government servant in the panel for promotion will be based on merit and ability of the contesting candidates and strict comparison of the cases of the individuals over period of specified period of service, say 5 years, to be taken up for analysis before deciding the question of inclusion or exclusion, the name of the petitioner was rightly not recommended and rightly excluded as his performance was not satisfactory. 7. By looking into the track records of the petitioner, this Court is able to see that the petitioner has been receiving every year every punishment. Under these circumstances, the petitioner being a part of police force, when he is not able to maintain clean record of service, as rightly decided in G.O.Ms.No.368, dated 18.10.93, this court finds no merits in the present writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs.