Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is one and the same person in both the writ petitions. The second writ petition (W.P.No.2318/2007) arose out of O.A.No.3626 of 2001 filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to challenge the order dated 30.09.2000, 12.12.2000 and 31.03.2001 and to set aside the same. That OA was admitted on 14.06.2001. 2. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent Superintendent of Police, Chengai East District had filed a reply affidavit dated 15.02.2001. 3. By the impugned order, the petitioner, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Airport Security was imposed with a penalty of Postponement of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. On appeal by the petitioner, the said order was confirmed by the third respondent, Director General of Police. 4. Even when the said OA was pending, the petitioner filed the second OA being O.A.No.4701 of 2000 seeking for a direction to promote him to the post of Inspector of Police pursuant to the inclusion of his name in the “C” list of Sub-Inspectors fit for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police for the year 1999-2000 without reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in PR.No.90/2000. In that OA, notice of motion was ordered on 17.07.2000. Pending the OA, no interim relief was granted. 5. On notice from the Tribunal, the sole respondent had filed a reply affidavit on 16.02.2001 in the second OA. 6. The facts leading to the imposition of penalty were as follows:- The petitioner was a directly recruited Sub- Inspector of Police in the year 1987. He was serving in the Ambattur Police station from 03.12.1999. On 09.03.2000, one Thenmeena, a resident of Mogappair preferred a written complaint stating hat her husband was kidnapped by four persons in an auto when he was riding a Scooter. On receipt of the complaint, the petitioner did not register a case under Section 363 IPC. Though the complaint disclose a cognizable offence, the petitioner treated it as mere letter petition. Later, it was ascertained during the enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the said kidnapped person was murdered by unknown persons and his body was found partly burnt in the reserve forest area in Vengal Police Station limits. Though the complaint disclose a cognizable offence, the petitioner treated it as mere letter petition. Later, it was ascertained during the enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the said kidnapped person was murdered by unknown persons and his body was found partly burnt in the reserve forest area in Vengal Police Station limits. Thereafter, a case of murder was registered on 10.03.2000 and the dead body was identified as one Thyagarajan, who is the husband of the original complainant Thenmeena. It was claimed that if the petitioner had registered the case on the basis of the written complaint and investigated the mater, the kidnapped person would have been saved. However, the petitioner's defence was that as soon as he had received the complaint, he gave an acknowledgment and proceed to make enquiries. Merely registering the FIR would not have changed the situation. 7. The enquiry was conducted by the DSP, Madhavaram and subsequently by the DSP, Avadi. Charges held against the petitioner were held to be proved. Thereafter, agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent awarded the punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. His subsequent appeal was also rejected. 8. Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that it is not a case of any negligence on the part of the petitioner in not registering an FIR. Though, under law, a Station House Officer is bound to register an FIR, but as a matter of practice, FIRs are registered only after sometime. In any event, the charge that he was responsible for the murder cannot be held as a valid charge. Even if he petitioner had registered an FIR still no one could have saved the victim as his whereabouts were not known. 9. However, in the present case, it is immaterial whether the deceased would have been saved by filing the FIR. But registration of an FIR is obligation on the part of the Station House Officer and they cannot shed their responsibility. The learned counsel contended that the Sub-Inspector was not the Station House Officer. But at the relevant time, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Inspector of police was on leave and the petitioner was in charge of the station. The learned counsel contended that the Sub-Inspector was not the Station House Officer. But at the relevant time, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Inspector of police was on leave and the petitioner was in charge of the station. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner was negligent in not registering the FIR, the respondents having found him guilty of the charge had imposed only a minor penalty. 10. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. When once the penalty was in currency, the question of including the petitioner's name in the panel for promotion will not arise as it will be contrary o the government orders prescribing guidelines for considering the candidates for promotion. 11. In the light of the above, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs.