JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash G.O.(2D) No.345, dated 12.6.2008 issued by the Home (Police IV) Department confirming the order, dt.19.6.2007 issued vide D.Dis.No.AP1 (1)/20/ 05857/2007 of the second respondent with consequential prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 7.7.2009 with appropriate seniority and all attendant benefits. 2. The petitioner joined services of the Police department as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1987. The petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 1988. The petitioner won a Gold medal in Scientific AIDs to investigation in the State Police Duty Meet, 2000 and another Gold Medal in Scientific AIDs to investigation in the All India Police Duty Meet 2000. The petitioner has also won a Bronze Medal in Scientific AIDs to investigation in the State Police Duty Meet, 2004. The petitioner in addition is also recipient of several appreciations and encomiums from higher officials. The petitioner also secured third place in Computerization and Modernization of Police Station in the year 2003. 3. The petitioner was served with Memorandum of Charges, dt.14.2.2005, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 which read as under: (i). Count No.1 – Gross dereliction of duty for having failed to mention the reason about the delay in registering the Criminal case in B6 Peelamedu L&O P.S in Crime No.721/2004 under Sec.324 and 323 I.P.C. in his first CD dt.31.7.2004. (ii). Count No.II – Gross dereliction of duty for having written false report in his C.D. dt.31.7.2004 that the complainant concerned in B6 Peelamedu PS Crime No.721/2004 had left for Kerala after completion of his studies. (iii). Count No.III – Gross dereliction of duty for having failed to send any C.Ds to the supervisory officers for perusal in B6 Peelamedu PS Crime No.721/2004 under Sec.324 and 323 I.P.C. (iv). Count No.IV – Gross dereliction of duty for having perfunctory investigation made in B6 Peelamedu PS, Crime No.721/2004 under section 324 and 323 IPC and referred the case as M.F. On 20.09.2004." 4. An enquiry was conducted into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Count No.IV – Gross dereliction of duty for having perfunctory investigation made in B6 Peelamedu PS, Crime No.721/2004 under section 324 and 323 IPC and referred the case as M.F. On 20.09.2004." 4. An enquiry was conducted into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Vide report, dated 17.6.2005, the enquiry officer held that all the four charges against the petitioner stood proved. The competent Authority agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and awarded punishment of rank reduction by one stage with reference No.RR9/2005 for a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the imposition of punishment. The appeal was partly allowed and the punishment of the petitioner was reduced to one of minor punishment, of postponement of increment for one year. 6. Though the order of punishment is under challenge in this Court, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner did not press this relief. 7. The only grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the order of postponement of increment for one year, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was not considered while permitting the junior to the petitioner on 1.6.2008, for the reason that the petitioner fell in check period because of imposition of punishment. 8. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that impugned action of the respondent in not considering the petitioner for promotion along with his juniors on account of the check period is not sustainable in law, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur and another vs V. Rani (2011)4 MLJ (FB). 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader vehemently contended, that the judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as admittedly the petitioner was charged under section 3(b) for misconduct. Therefore, the respondents were right in not considering the petitioner for promotion being in the check period of five years. 10. On consideration, I find that the defence raised by the learned Additional Govt. Pleader cannot be accepted. The question which arises in this case is, as to whether the check period can be a ground to deny the right of consideration for promotion. 10. On consideration, I find that the defence raised by the learned Additional Govt. Pleader cannot be accepted. The question which arises in this case is, as to whether the check period can be a ground to deny the right of consideration for promotion. It is not disputed that the major punishment awarded to the petitioner by the competent authority was reduced to one of minor punishment by the appellate authority, the order imposing minor punishment has also attained finality and therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench referred to above, it is not open to the respondent to ignore the case of the petitioner for considering the case for promotion by invoking check period. Merely because a person is charged with serious misconduct though awarded minor punishment cannot be a ground to deny promotion during the check period. It is the punishment awarded and not the alleged misconduct which is required to be seen. The question raised in this petition therefore deserves to be answered against the respondents. 11. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date of his immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits. No costs.