Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 810 (MAD)

K. Kanniappan v. Secretary To Govt

2012-02-15

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police Category I by appointment by transfer, without reference to punishment suffered in the year 2001-2001, with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. The petitioner was directly recruited as Sub Inspector of Police on 15.10.1976 and was promoted to the post of Inspector on 26.8.1988. During his service, the petitioner was awarded 100 rewards including 12 meritorious service awards. The petitioner is eligible to be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police Category I. 3. The respondent No.1 prepared a panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police Category I for the year 1999 -2000 which was published on 20.12.2000 vide which the petitioner's batchmates were promoted. 4. The case of the petitioner is that when regular panel for the year 2000 - 2001 was under consideration, the petitioner was not considered, on the ground that he was facing two departmental enquiries. The charge memo was issued to him under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, but subsequently, altered into 3(a) of the Rules, therefore could not be treated to be a bar for promotion. 5. The case pleaded in the petition is, that the petitioner was imposed a minor punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect on 04.04.2001. 6. The submission of the petitioner is that the alleged occurrence resulting in holding of departmental enquiry, took place on 17.8.1991 and a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner wherein the petitioner was acquitted. That according to the guidelines issued by the department, delinquent officer who suffered punishment within the check period, on the charge of serious misconduct which had taken place five years prior to the crucial date, the said punishment was not to be considered at the time of promotion. Crucial date of this case for promotion was for the year 2000 - 2001 whereas occurrence was of the year 1991. 7. It is contended that punishment cannot come in the way of being considered for promotion. 8. The order therefore is discriminatory and arbitrary thus, violative of Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. Crucial date of this case for promotion was for the year 2000 - 2001 whereas occurrence was of the year 1991. 7. It is contended that punishment cannot come in the way of being considered for promotion. 8. The order therefore is discriminatory and arbitrary thus, violative of Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to include his name in the panel for the year 2000 - 2001 without reference to punishment of postponement of increment of one year without cumulative effect. 10. On consideration, I find no force in the writ petition. The guidelines relied upon by the petitioner have no application, as admittedly, the petitioner was facing departmental enquiry for serious misconduct, which was subsequently converted into a minor punishment. During the said period, the petitioner was suffering punishment of stoppage of increment thus, was not eligible for being considered for promotion in the year 2000 2001. 11. The guideline referred to by the petitioner can be made applicable only after expiry of the punishment and not during pendency of the punishment, as the guidelines cannot be contrary to rules. 12. Consequently, finding no merit, the writ petition, is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.