ORDER: 1. The petitioner was enlisted as Grade II Police Constable on 6.12.1975. He was upgraded as Grade I Police Constable on 7.8.1993. 2. While so, he was placed under suspension on 17.9.1998 in connection with registration of a criminal case in DCB Crime No.1 of 1996 relating to illegal arrest and detention of one S.Balaraman. The suspension was subsequently revoked on 6.2.2001. He joined duty on 19.2.2001. 3. However, he was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur by judgment dated 21.8.2006 in C.C.No.52 of 1998. Based on the same, he was dismissed from service with effect from 6.10.2006 by proceedings of the second respondent dated 29.9.2006. 4. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2006 before the Fast Track Court, Tindivanam as against the aforesaid conviction. The Criminal Appeal was allowed on 9.6.2007. The petitioner was taken back to service by an order dated 5.11.2007 and he joined duty on 12.11.2007. 5. The first respondent dropped the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner in P.R.No86/99 on the same set of facts that led to filing of the criminal case. 6. The second respondent passed an order dated 20.5.2008, in the said circumstances, treating the entire period of suspension as duty period and he was paid all benefits for the period of his non-employment. 7. While so, the second respondent passed an order dated 30.5.2008 upgrading the petitioner as Head Constable with effect from 25.1.1998 on completion of 5 years of service as Grade I Police Constable. However, the monetary benefits payable on upgradation as Head Constable was denied. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2705/2009 to quash the order dated 30.5.2008 and for a consequential direction to pay monetary benefits. 8. The petitioner made a representation dated 28.7.2008 that his junior Mr.Mohamed Yusuf got promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police and hence he should also be given promotion as Sub Inspector of Police with all benefits. 9. He sought for upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police on completion of 10 years of service as Head Constable, with effect from 25.1.2008 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.937, Home Department dated 21.7.1998 and also G.O.Ms.No.15, Home Department dated 7.1.2010. 10. 9. He sought for upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police on completion of 10 years of service as Head Constable, with effect from 25.1.2008 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.937, Home Department dated 21.7.1998 and also G.O.Ms.No.15, Home Department dated 7.1.2010. 10. His request was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 25.11.2008 on the ground that he suffered the punishment of reduction in rank for two years from Grade I Police Constable to Grade II Police Constable in P.R.No.23/2000 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by an order dated 19.2.2001 and hence, he did not serve for a period of 10 years as Head Constable for upgradation to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police. 11. He preferred an appeal to the first respondent against the aforesaid order dated 25.11.2008. He wanted promotion from 2004 as Sub Inspector of Police as his junior Mohamed Yusuf was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police. He also stated that other juniors were promoted as Sub Inspector and he gave their names. In any event, according to him, he should have been given upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police on 25.1.2008 on completion of 10 years as Head Constable. The appeal was rejected by the first respondent by an order dated 26.12.2008. 12. The petitioner, in the circumstances, has filed the first Writ Petition No.2703 of 2009 to quash the aforesaid order dated 25.11.2008 of the second respondent and also the order dated 26.12.2008 of the first respondent, confirming the order of the second respondent. He sought for a direction to promote him as Sub Inspector of Police from 26.1.2000 with all benefits. 13. The respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. They reiterated that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he should have been promoted as Sub Inspector of Police from 4.8.2004, the date on which his junior one Mohamed Yusuf was promoted. The petitioner did not participate in the selection process during 2004, since he was working only as Grade I Police Constable. The Head Constables alone could participate in the selection for the post of Sub Inspector. Only in the year 2008, he was upgraded as Head Constable with effect from 25.1.1998. The petitioner did not participate in the selection process during 2004, since he was working only as Grade I Police Constable. The Head Constables alone could participate in the selection for the post of Sub Inspector. Only in the year 2008, he was upgraded as Head Constable with effect from 25.1.1998. Hence, it was not his fault for his non-participation in the selection process that took place in the year 2000 and 2012. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in any event, he is entitled to be upgraded as Special Sub Inspector of Police on completion of 10 years of service as Head Constable with effect from 25.1.2008, particularly when the order dated 30.5.2008 upgrading him as Head Constable with effect from 25.1.1998 was not cancelled. The respondents are not correct in passing the impugned order dated 25.11.2008 in stating that as on 1.6.2008, the petitioner did not serve 10 years as Head Constable, since he was imposed with the punishment of reduction in rank i.e. From Grade I Police Constable to Grade II Police Constable, for two years by an order dated 19.2.2001. 16. After having upgraded him as Head Constable from 25.1.1998 as per the order dated 30.5.2008, the respondents are not correct in stating that two years period of reduction in rank from the post of Grade I Police Constable to Grade II Police Constable as ordered in the order dated 19.2.2001, shall be counted as a period rendered in the post of Grade II Police Constable and therefore, the petitioner has rendered only 8 years of service as Head Constable. 17. Further, he has submitted that there is no reason to deny the petitioner the salary for the post of Head Constable from 25.1.1998 and the monetary benefits payable to the post of Head Constable, since he was upgraded by the order dated 30.5.2008 as Head Constable with effect from 25.1.1998. According to him, as on 25.1.1998, he did not face any criminal proceeding or departmental proceedings. Hence, as on the crucial date of 25.1.1998, as there was no proceeding pending against him, he should have been upgraded as Head Constable on 25.1.1998. 18. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader seeks dismissal of the Writ Petitions based on the counter affidavit. 19. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides. 20. 18. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader seeks dismissal of the Writ Petitions based on the counter affidavit. 19. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides. 20. The petitioner joined service as Grade II Police Constable on 6.12.1975. He was promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 7.8.1993. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 17.9.1998 due to pendency of the criminal case. However, the suspension was revoked on 6.2.2001. While so, the criminal case ended in conviction on 21.8.2006. Hence, he was dismissed from service on 29.9.2006. Later, the conviction was set aside on 9.6.2007. Thereafter, he was reinstated in service by an order dated 5.11.2007. The Departmental proceeding on the same set of facts, for which he faced the criminal proceedings, was also dropped by an order dated 7.2.2008 of the second respondent. These facts are not in dispute. 21. As per G.O.Ms.No.15, Home Department dated 7.1.2010, Grade I Police Constables who have rendered 5 years of service as Grade I Police Constables, are upgraded as Head Constables. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be upgraded as Head Constable as on 25.1.1998. He was placed under suspension only on 17.9.1998 in connection with the criminal case. Therefore, as on 25.1.1998, there was no disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. 22. Hence, in my view, the petitioner is entitled to be upgraded as Head Constable with effect from 25.1.1998 23. In fact, the order dated 30.5.2008 was passed by the second respondent upgrading the petitioner as Head Constable with effect from 25.1.1998. However, the petitioner was deprived of the monetary benefits payable to the post of Head Constable with effect from 25.1.1998. In my view, there is no reason to deny the petitioner monetary benefits for the post of Head Constable from 25.1.1998. The order dated 30.5.2008, with regard to depriving the monetary benefits with effect from 25.1.1998 for the post of Head Constable, is bad. As stated above, it is only an upgradation for the post of Head Constable on completion of 5 years of service as Grade I Police Constable. As he did not face any departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings as on 25.1.1998, he is entitled to upgradation for the post of Head Constable. As stated above, it is only an upgradation for the post of Head Constable on completion of 5 years of service as Grade I Police Constable. As he did not face any departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings as on 25.1.1998, he is entitled to upgradation for the post of Head Constable. Further more, the subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against him ended in acquittal and the Departmental proceeding was also dropped in this regard. Hence, there is no reason to deny him the monetary benefits payable to the post of Head Constable from 25.1.1998, particularly, when he was upgraded as Head Constable with effect from 25.1.1998. Hence, the portion of the order dated 30.5.2008 denying the monetary benefits to the petitioner for the post of Head Constable is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to pay the monetary benefits for the post of Head Constable to the petitioner for the period from 25.1.1998. 24. Further more, the petitioner was not given upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 25.1.2008 on completion of 10 years of service as Head Constable. It is stated in the impugned order dated 26.12.2008 that the petitioner suffered the punishment of reduction in rank from the post of Grade I Police Constable to the post of Grade II Police Constable for a period of 2 years with effect from 19.2.2001. Therefore, according to the first respondent, he completed only 8 years of service as Head Constable. 25. In my view, the order dated 26.12.2008 is irrational. He was upgraded as Head Constable with effect from 25.1.1998 by an order dated 30.5.2008. The same order is still in force and the same is not cancelled. Once the petitioner is upgraded as Head Constable from 25.1.1998, the period of service as Head Constable shall be counted with effect from 25.1.1998. Thereafter, he cannot be directed to undertake the punishment of reduction in rank from Grade I to Grade II Police Constable. Therefore, in my view, on completion of 10 years of service as Head Constable, he is entitled to be upgraded as Special Sub Inspector of Police in terms of G.O.Ms.No.937, Home Department dated 21.7.1998 read with G.O.Ms.No.15, Home Department dated 7.1.2010. 26. Therefore, in my view, on completion of 10 years of service as Head Constable, he is entitled to be upgraded as Special Sub Inspector of Police in terms of G.O.Ms.No.937, Home Department dated 21.7.1998 read with G.O.Ms.No.15, Home Department dated 7.1.2010. 26. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 26.12.2008 passed by the first respondent and 25.11.2008 passed by the second respondent are liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for a direction to the respondents to upgrade the petitioner as Special Sub Inspector of Police on 25.1.2008 on completion of 10 years of service as Head Constable. 27. However, in my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police from 26.1.2000 as prayed for in the W.P.No.2703/2009. In the case of his junior Mohamed Yusuf, he participated in the selection process and got selected and promoted as Sub Inspector of Police in 2004. It was not an upgradation to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, but it is a selection for promotion to the said post. Hence, the petitioner cannot compare himself with Mohamed Yusuf and others, who participated in the selection process and got selected. The petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police is not justified. In fact, in Writ Petition No.2703 of 2009, he has sought for promotion from the year 2000. It is not known as to how he could seek promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police from 2000. Without participating in the selection process, he cannot seek for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police from 2000 or 2004 or any date. 28. In the result, the following orders are passed: I. The order dated 25.11.2008 of the second respondent and the order dated 26.12.2008 of the first respondent are quashed. II. The respondents are directed to upgrade the petitioner as Special Sub Inspector of Police from 25.1.2008 on completion of 10 years of service as Head Constable. The respondents are directed to pay the monetary benefits payable for the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police to the petitioner from 25.1.2008. As the petitioner is said to have retired on 30.4.2009, terminal benefits shall be worked out based on the pay applicable to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police. III. The respondents are directed to pay the monetary benefits payable for the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police to the petitioner from 25.1.2008. As the petitioner is said to have retired on 30.4.2009, terminal benefits shall be worked out based on the pay applicable to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police. III. The portion declining monetary benefits to the petitioner for the post of Head Constable with effect from 25.1.1998 in the order dated 30.5.2008 is quashed. IV. The respondents are directed to pay monetary benefits to the petitioner payable for the post of Head Constable from 25.1.1998. V. The respondents are directed to pay the monetary benefits in the above terms, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 29. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.