Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3208 (MAD)

V. Sabapathy v. Director General of Police

2010-07-30

T.RAJA

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner filed the Original Application on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the order of the respondent dated 08.06.99, passed in R.C.No.216789/NGB I(1)/98 in so far as the petitioner is concerned and issue direction directing the respondent herein to include the petitioners name in the “C” List of Sub-Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police drawn for the year 1998-99, with a consequential direction to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Police without reference to the punishment of reduction in pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect passed in P.R.No.90/97, dated 23.12.97 and the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect passed in G.O.Ms.No.1652, dated 14.12.99 with effect from 08.06.99 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered two disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. When the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect in PR.No.90/97, dated 23.12.97, again he suffered another punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Therefore, the petitioner was denied for promotion. Admittedly, when the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 3(b) was pending during the year 199899, the respondents have not included the name of the petitioner in the “C” list of Sub-Inspector of Police drawn for the year 1998-99. 3. It is relevant to keep in mind that the imposition of minor penalty, ipso facto, does not disqualify the delinquent from being considered for promotion. 3. It is relevant to keep in mind that the imposition of minor penalty, ipso facto, does not disqualify the delinquent from being considered for promotion. However, if the same delinquent suffers disciplinary proceedings initiated for major penalty under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, even after the completion of the enquiry proceedings, the disciplinary authority after finding him guilty of the charges under major disciplinary proceedings, decides to impose a minor penalty, that itself will not entitle the petitioner to make a claim for inclusion of his name in the promotional panel for further promotion on the basis that he suffered only a minor punishment, in as much as in the present case, though the two punishments imposed against the petitioner appeared to be minor punishment, this Court, while considering the fact that the petitioner suffered major disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, is not inclined to consider the prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.