Judgment : ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. Since both the matters are inter-connected with each other, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in W.P. No. 36701 of 2006. 3. The petitioner Mr. S. Baskaran joined the Tamil Nadu State Police Service as Deputy Superintendent of Police as a direct recruit on 1.12.1989, promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 1998 and thereafter as Superintendent of Police on 10.6.2000. According to him, he was eligible for inclusion in the IPS select list for the year 2001-2002; that the IPS select committee met on 28.12.2002 and though on that date, he did not have any current punishment nor any adverse annual confidential report, he was overlooked in the IPS select lists of the year 2001 and 2002. Since his such representations did not evince any fruitful result to him, he has filed O.A. No. 384 of 2005 before the Tribunal and as the Tribunal has dismissed the said Original Application, he has come forward to file W.P. No. 36701 of 2006. 4. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he got the following ACR grades: 5. Submitting the above details, the petitioner would contend that though, he, thus, got better ACR grades, the Select Committee had failed to apprise his ACR ratings correctly without bias and awarded him a lesser rating as ‘Good‘ in the meeting, which is quite contrary to the entries in the available records. 6. To verify the details, we have called for the original records from the official respondents, whereupon, the original records containing the proceedings of the Selection Committee were submitted before us in a sealed cover. The name of the petitioner was considered by the DPC whose name figure at Sl. No. 11 in the select lists of the years 2001 and 2002. The original records narrate the gradings of the petitioner as follows: 7. The name of the petitioner was considered by the DPC whose name figure at Sl. No. 11 in the select lists of the years 2001 and 2002. The original records narrate the gradings of the petitioner as follows: 7. A perusal of the original file does falsify this stand taken on the part of the petitioner, since taking into consideration the maximum rates of gradings in the last five years, the ‘overall assessment‘ was awarded by the select committee, consisting of the Member of the Union Public Service Commission as the President and the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police and Additional Director General of Police of the State Government and the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Union of India as the Members. 8. Since for four years, out of five years, he has been assessed as ‘good‘, his overall assessment was recorded as ‘good‘ by the select committee for the select year 2001 and for the select year 2002 as ‘unfit‘ because of the punishment of censure. Though the petitioner has contended that the select committee ought to have awarded the gradings in an unbiased manner, with which we have also no quarrel, in the absence of any proof that the select committee has acted in a manner unknown to law, much less with acts of bias, we are not able to say that the gradings of the petitioner were awarded in a biased manner by such a high level committee. 9. 9. In this regard, it is also to be pointed out that in catena of judgments, the upper forums of law, particularly the Honourable Apex Court, have taken a consistent view that the judicial fora cannot arrogate to themselves the process of comparing the merits and demerits of the candidates and substitute themselves to the DPC, particularly in the absence of any proof of bias and not hit by mala fides and arbitrariness (vide UPSC v. H.L. Dev and Others AIR 1988 SC 1069 : (1988) 2 SCC 242 ; Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan AIR 1990 434 : (1990) 1 SCC 305 : 1990-II-LLJ-470 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shrikant Chapekar JT 1992 (5) SC 633; Nutan Arvind v. Union of India and Others AIR 1996 SC 3352 : (1996) 2 SCC 488 ; Durgadevi and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others AIR 1997 SC 2618 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 982 and Smt. Anil Katiyar v. Union of India and Others AIR 1997 SC 2656 : (1997) 1 SCC 280 : 1997 (1) SLR 153. Therefore, we are unable to appreciate the arguments advanced on the part of the petitioner in this line. 10. Even with regard to the claim of the petitioner that the select committee has placed reliance on adverse remarks, which are not communicated to him, we are unable to affix our seal of approval since it has been clearly mentioned in the minutes of the select committee that they have not taken into consideration the adverse remarks, which are not communicated to the employees. 11. From the materials placed on record, we are able to see that though for the year 2001, the petitioner could not get selected since there are other officers with better gradings, in the year 2002, the only impediment which stood in his way was the punishment of censure inflicted on him. But for this punishment of censure, he seems to be eligible to be selected in the select list of 2002. Only on this ground of ‘unfit‘ awarded to him, because of the punishment of censure, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the claim of the petitioner in its order dated 5.5.2006 made in O.A. No. 384 of 2005. 12. Therefore, now, we have to consider the rival contentions made by both the parties in W.P. No. 3207 of 2008. Only on this ground of ‘unfit‘ awarded to him, because of the punishment of censure, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the claim of the petitioner in its order dated 5.5.2006 made in O.A. No. 384 of 2005. 12. Therefore, now, we have to consider the rival contentions made by both the parties in W.P. No. 3207 of 2008. This writ petition has been filed by the State challenging the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 411 of 2007, dated 10.12.2007, thereby setting aside the punishment of censure imposed on the applicant (the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 36701 of 2006 and the first respondent in W.P. No. 3207 of 2008) on the ground that for one and the same set of facts, second punishment cannot be imposed. 13. The applicant was issued with a charge sheet on 29.5.2000, alleging that there was slackness in supervision of the work of subordinate officers especially the staff of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Attur Unit, which resulted in the high handed action of head constable Thiru Swaminathan being trapped by the Anti Corruption Department, while accepting an illegal gratification. Based on the said charge sheet, a punishment of ‘censure‘ was imposed on the applicant by the order dated 1.8.2000. Against the said order, he preferred an appeal to the Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 on 5.10.2000, which was referred to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and by the letter dated 12.10.2001, the Secretary of the said Commission has informed the Secretary of the Home Department that the final order dated 1.8.2000 was not approved and signed by the Director General of Police, though it was issued in his name, and as such the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the Director General of Police, by order dated 21.12.2001, set aside the order of punishment of ‘censure‘ passed on 1.8.2000. Thereafter, the applicant filed an appeal on 12.8.2002 against the order dated 27.2.2002 to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai, who rejected the appeal on 21.4.2003 on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the time prescribed in Rule 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules after referring to the applicant‘s letter dated 24.3.2003, but, however, the applicant made a representation dated 26.4.2004, which was also rejected by the Secretary, Home Department, by the order dated 22.7.2004. 14. 14. He was again served with a charge memo, dated 26.4.2005, alleging that while he was serving as Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW, Salem from 25.10.1998 to 8.5.2000, he had failed to adhere to the correct procedure for compounding offences under the and that he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and conduct himself in a manner unbecoming of a member of the Indian Police Service and was called upon to submit his explanation. The applicant also submitted his explanation on 20.6.2005 and an enquiry officer was appointed on 29.8.2005 and at last, the third petitioner in W.P. No. 3207 of 2008 was appointed as the enquiry officer by G.O. Ms. No. 374, dated 14.3.2007, which was communicated to the applicant on 23.4.2007. Aggrieved by the charge memo., dated 26.4.2005 and the belated appointment of Enquiry Officer on 14.3.2007, the applicant has filed O.A. No. 411 of 2007 before the Tribunal and since the Tribunal has allowed the said Original Application, the Government has come forward to file this W.P. No. 3207 of 2008. 15. While on the part of the Government it has been maintained that the earlier charge, whereupon the punishment of censure was imposed and ultimately set aside, is quite distinct from the present one and hence the present punishment of censure is very well maintainable, on the part of the applicant, garnering support from the order of the Tribunal, it has been argued that for one and the same charge, he has been penalised twice, which is illegal. 16. To assess this aspect, let us see the charge framed against the applicant in the impugned charge memo, dated 26.4.2005: “That you, Thiru S. Baskaran, IPS, while serving as Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Salem District from 25.10.1998 to8.5.2000, had failed to adhere by to the correct procedure for compounding offences under the . Thus you have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and conducted yourself in a manner unbecoming of a Member of the Indian Police Service and thus violated Rule 20(1) of, 1973, corresponding to Rule 3(1) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.” 17. Thus you have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and conducted yourself in a manner unbecoming of a Member of the Indian Police Service and thus violated Rule 20(1) of, 1973, corresponding to Rule 3(1) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.” 17. The earlier charge for which the punishment of censure was imposed on the applicant was that there was slackness in supervision over the work of subordinate officers especially the staff of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Attur Unit which resulted in the high handed action of head constable Thiru Swaminathan being trapped by the Anti Corruption Department, while accepting an illegal gratification. 18. It has been contended on the part of the Government that during the relevant period, the police constables working under the applicant have involved in the act of forgery, while dealing with compounding forms and the applicant has approved the compounding forms without proper verification. We wonder as to whether this alleged act of the applicant would not fall within the meaning of ‘lack of supervision over the subordinates‘ for which the applicant was already punished. It is not the case of the Government that the applicant has indulged in corrupt practices and the bona fides of the applicant are not at stake. The only allegation against him is that he has not properly verified the compounding forms submitted by his subordinates. Further, the incidents which are mentioned in the present charge sheet are also emanated from the same records which were available with the officials in the year 2000. On a comparative study of both the charges, we have no hesitation to hold that, but for different language used, the present charge was an included misconduct with the earlier charge of ‘lack of supervision‘, for which the applicant was already inflicted with a punishment of censure. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the officials that the earlier charge was only with regard to the illegal gratification obtained by the subordinate of the applicant, by name Swaminathan and hence the present charge is quite different and distinct. 19. The other ground on which the charge memo, was challenged by the applicant is the delay in appointing the enquiry officer. 19. The other ground on which the charge memo, was challenged by the applicant is the delay in appointing the enquiry officer. From the materials placed on record, it is seen that the present impugned second charge sheet was issued on 20.6.2005 and the first enquiry officer was appointed on 29.8.2005, but with no progress of whatsoever in the matter and ultimately, the third petitioner Mr. A.K. Viswanathan was appointed as the enquiry officer by the Government by the G.O. Ms. No. 374, dated 14.3.2007. The period for which the delinquency was alleged was between 25.10.1998 and 8.5.2000. The charge memo, for the alleged lapses was issued after five years of the period and the enquiry officer was appointed two years thereafter. When the authorities are taking exemption to consider the claims of officers, for next promotion, against whom the charges are pending and branding them as ‘tainted officers‘ and the inclusion of their names in the select lists are made only provisional, with no fruitful purpose to serve, is it not the responsibility of the authorities to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the officers against whom delinquencies are alleged in a time bound manner? If this practice of prolonging the enquiry proceedings for years together, with no appreciable cause, is encouraged, ultimately, it will have serious repercussions on the prospects of the employees. Therefore, on a complete re-analysis of the entire materials placed on record, we are in total conformity with the views expressed and the decision arrived at by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 411 of 2007. Resultantly, W.P. No. 3207 of 2008 filed by the State is liable only to be dismissed. For all the above reasons, W.P. No. 3207 of 2008 filed by the State is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 411 of 2007. W.P. No. 36701 of 2006 filed by the petitioner is allowed in part, directing the official respondents 1 to 3 (in W.P. No. 36701 of 2006) to conduct DPC, afresh, for the years 2001 and 2002, considering the claim of this petitioner (S. Baskaran) also, in view of our observations and direction, along with other eligible candidates, removing the note ‘unfit‘ noted against him and by excluding the names of the tainted officers, for inclusion in the select lists for the years 2001 and 2002 and to pass consequential orders. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.