Judgment : 1. The Petitioner has filed the instant writ of Mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the Respondent to consider his case for upgradation as Grade I Police Constable with effect from 24.05.2009 viz., from the date of promotion of his immediate juniors with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. According to the Petitioner, he joined the police services as Grade II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police on 24.05.1999 and he was transferred to Armed Reserve and thereafter to Local Police. He maintained a clear record of service till the year 2004 and on 21.04.2005, he was subject to one minor punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect. 3. The Petitioner while serving as driver in Armed Reserve, Motor Transport Wing on 28.03.2005 at 10.00 a.m., drove the Toyota Qualis vehicle which met with an accident with Fiat Petra car on the National Highway. There was no injury to anyone except damage being caused to the vehicle. He was issued with a charge memo in P.R.108/05 dated 21.04.2005 under rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules by the Superintendent of Police, Vellore, District for negligent driving on the National Highway and causing damage to the Police Vehicle. No criminal case was registered against him. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore Sub Division held that charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved and on 24.10.2005, the Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, awarded him the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect. His appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, was rejected on 25.04.2006 and further, his mercy petition to the Director General of Police was rejected on 07.11.2008. The punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect was under currency from 24.10.2005 to 24.10.2006. In proceedings Na.Ka.No.309/2835/07 dated 24.08.2007, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police Office passed orders to the effect that his currency of punishment was completed on 24.10.2006 and ordered restoration of his pay and increment was granted from 01.04.2007. 5. In proceedings Na.Ka.No.309/2835/07 dated 24.08.2007, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police Office passed orders to the effect that his currency of punishment was completed on 24.10.2006 and ordered restoration of his pay and increment was granted from 01.04.2007. 5. The stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that there is no currency of punishment against the Petitioner after 24.10.2006 inasmuch as he was fully qualified to be promoted as Grade I Police Constable and also that he passed S.S.L.C. which is the required qualification as per Rules. 6. The Secretary to Government, Home (Pol.V) Department had issued G.O.Ms.No.1024, Home (Pol.V) Department dated 02.12.2009 based on the recommendation of the Director General of Police to upgrade 3606 Grade II Police Constables enlisted on 24.05.1999 as Grade I Police Constable with effect from 24.05.2009. The Government had accepted the proposal of the Director General of Police and ordered to upgrade Grade II Police Constables with effect from 24.05.2009. 7. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police Office in C.P.O.No.274/2010 dated 29.01.2010, consequent to the G.O.Ms.No.1024, dated 02.12.2009, had directed upgradation of Grade II Police Constables enlisted on 24.05.1999 as Grade I Police Constables on completion of 10 years of service. In this order, it was specifically stated that police personnel who are under suspension, desertion, facing criminal charge, facing 3(b) charge, facing TDP enquiry, PSO enquiry and other departmental lapses need not be promoted. 8. The Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Chennai, by means of proceedings in Rc.No.1699/Estt.II(1)/(N)/10, NZO.90/2010 dated 02.02.2010, issued orders upgrading 83 Grade II Police Constables enlisted on 24.05.1999 as Grade I Police Constables with effect from 24.05.2009. 9. The Grievance of the Petitioner is that though he is fully eligible for promotion as Grade I Police Constable on upgradation with effect from 24.05.2009, but he was discriminated and his name was omitted to be included. Even before his batchmates and juniors were granted promotion as Grade I Police Constables, he submitted a representation on 04.01.2010 to the Respondent/Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Chennai, in person stating that only punishment was not under currency and therefore, he may be considered for promotion along with his batchmates. However, no order was passed on his representation. Further, on 22.01.2011 and 14.03.2011, he preferred representations through proper channel to the Respondent to grant him promotion as Grade I Police Constable. However, no order was passed on his representation. Further, on 22.01.2011 and 14.03.2011, he preferred representations through proper channel to the Respondent to grant him promotion as Grade I Police Constable. On these representations also, no orders have been passed till date. He has not been informed of the reason for denial of his upgradation as Grade I Police Constable. 10. The pith and substance of the plea taken on behalf of the petitioner, when there is no currency of punishment after 24.10.2006 and his batchmates and juniors were promoted with effect from 24.05.2009, denying promotion to him on the basis that he had punishment within five years is without application of mind. 11. Per contra, the Respondent by filing a counter of W.P.No.17500 of 2011 (filed by the Petitioner), wherein paragraphs 5 to 8 stated as under: "5. With regard to averments made in para 6 the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect awarded to him was under currency from 24.10.2005 to 24.10.2006 in C.No.309/2835/07, dated 24.08.2007 and it was completed on 24.10.2006 and had ordered restoration of pay and increment was granted from 01.04.2007 to him. No currency of punishment against him after 24.10.2006. But this punishment was comes within the check period (i.e.) upto 23.10.2010 as per the G.O.Ms.No.368, P& AR, Dept, dated 18.10.1993. 6. With regards to averments made in para-7, the Secretary to Government, Home (Pol.V) Department had issued G.O.Ms.No.1024, Home(Pol.V) Department dated 02.12.2009 based on the recommendation of the Director General of Police, 3606 Grade II Police Constables enlisted in the year 1999, those who have completed 10 years of service in the post of Gr.II.PC on 23.05.2009 to upgrad as Gr.I.PC with effect from 24.05.1999. The Government had accepted the proposal of Director General of Police and ordered to upgrade Grade II Police Constables enlisted on 24.05.1999 as Grade I Police Constables with effect from 24.05.2009. 7. With regards to averments made in Para-8, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police Office in C.P.O.No.274/2010 dated 29.01.2010 consequence of the above G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.12.2009 (copy enclosed), had directed upgradation of Grade II Police Constables enlisted on 24.05.1999 as Grade I Police Constables on completion of 10 years of service. 7. With regards to averments made in Para-8, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police Office in C.P.O.No.274/2010 dated 29.01.2010 consequence of the above G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.12.2009 (copy enclosed), had directed upgradation of Grade II Police Constables enlisted on 24.05.1999 as Grade I Police Constables on completion of 10 years of service. In this order, it has been specifically mentioned that Police Personnel who are under suspension, desertion, facing criminal charge, facing 3(b) charge, facing TDP enquiry, PSO enquiry and other departmental lapses need not be promoted. 8. With regards to averments made in para-9, the Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Chennai had issued orders No.90/2010 in Rc.No.1699/Esst.II(1)/N/2010 dated 02.02.2010, 83 Grade II Police Constables were enlisted on 24.05.1999 were upgraded as Grade I PC with effect from 24.05.2009. He was awarded a punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for one year and the period of reduction shall not operate postpone of his future increment in PR.No.108/2005 u/s 3(b) of TNPSS (D&S) 1955. Hence, his name was not considered for the upgradation as Grade I PC. at the time. With regards to averments made in Para-10, 11 and 12, the name of the applicant was not included in the panel of Gr.I.PC fit for upgradation as Gr.I.PC due to award of punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for one year and period of reduction shall not operate postponement of his future increment in the PR.No.108/2005. However, on completion of punishment period, his pay was restored as per order No.2152/2007 in Rc.No.309/2835/2007, dated 24.08.2007 (copy enclosed) of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police and he was upgraded as Gr.I.PC w.e.f.24.05.2010 as the upgradation was deferred for one year from the crucial date." 12. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.315,355,587,869 and 826/2010 & 149/2011 & W.A.No.280 of 2011 and W.P.Nos.45960 & 47252 of 2006, 955 of 2007, 22234 and 22235, 26620 of 2010 and W.P.(MD).Nos.2023 of 2010, 3099 & 3602 of 2011 between THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THANJAVUR RANGE, THANJAVUR AND ANOTHER V. V.RANI, 2011 (3) CTC 129 , at special pages Nos.39 and 40, wherein in paragraph-28, it is observed and laid down as follows: "28. Therefore, after analysis of the entire law on the subject, we answer the reference as follows: (1) During the period of currency of minor punishment, an employee cannot claim as a matter of right to be promoted to the next category merely on the basis that he is otherwise fit for promotion and to that extent, the finding of the Division Bench in Subramanian v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Chennai and others, 2008 (5) MLJ 350 ,stands overruled. It is needless to state that after the currency of punishment period, the Government servant is entitled to be considered for promotion to the next post, if otherwise eligible. (2) If any benefit has been informed on the party to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Subramanian v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Chennai and others, 2008 (5) MLJ 350 , the same shall not be affected by the judgment of this Bench since there is a factual finding in that case there was a technical lapse committed by the delinquent and no financial loss caused. (3) The detailed instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.1993 issued by the Chief Secretary to Government by order of the Governor, cannot be equated to the Statutory Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and it can utmost be Administrative Instructions issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. In any event the said Government Order does not deal with the case of promotion of a Government servant during the currency of punishment. (4) The Government Letter No.18824/S/2005-2, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 7.10.2005 with annexures 1 to 7 and the letter No.248 (P&AR) Department, dated 20.10.1997 are not Statutory Rules framed under Proviso Article 309 of the Constitution of India and cannot be read either with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 or under the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. (5) Consequently, the embargo put on the right of Government servant for being considered for promotion for a further period, after the period of minor punishment is over, in the name of 'check period' viz., one year in the case of censure and five years in the case other minor punishments is illegal and impermissible under the Statutory Rules." 13. (5) Consequently, the embargo put on the right of Government servant for being considered for promotion for a further period, after the period of minor punishment is over, in the name of 'check period' viz., one year in the case of censure and five years in the case other minor punishments is illegal and impermissible under the Statutory Rules." 13. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also made a reference to paragraph-8 of the aforesaid Full Bench decision at pages 29 to 31, wherein it is observed as under: "8. In addition to the above said Government Order, the Secretary to Government issued a latter dated 7.10.2005 by referring to G.OMs.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 18.10.1993 and the letter is stated to be in the form of consolidated instructions. Admittedly, that letter has not even been issued by the order of the Governor or issued as per the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said letter contains various annexures viz., Annexure I to VII. In that, Annexure-I explains about the preparation of estimate of vacancies and preparation of panel. The clause relating to preparation of panel in Annexure-I to the said letter, speaks about the effect of pendency of vigilance enquiry and charges on inclusion in a panel for promotion by recruitment by transfer, while it is stated that the pendency of charges framed under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules need not be held against the officer irrespective of the pendency of delinquency, it is also explained about the effect of punishment on inclusion in the panel. Clause (b)II reads as follows: "(b) II. Effect of punishments on inclusion in the panel-- As warning or severe warning is not a statutory punishment and since there is no provision for appeal, it need not be held against the Officer, whether it was awarded after framing of charges under Rule 17(a) or 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules. 2. Any punishment, other than 'Censure' imposed on an Officer within a period of Five years prior to the crucial date and a punishment of 'Censure' within a period of one year prior to the crucial date (or censure imposed after the crucial date, but before actual promotion) should be held against the Officer. In such a case the Officer's name should be passed over. In such a case the Officer's name should be passed over. Provided that if the officer was imposed within any of the punishments within the check period as mentioned above for irregularities/delinquencies which occurred five years prior to the crucial date, such punishment need not be held against him, if such penalty is not in currency on the crucial date and also on the date of consideration of the panel. Provided that an Officer passed over once, need not be passed over for the second time on account of the same punishment at the time of subsequent consideration for the next panel." Since the punishment of censure is one of the codified punishments, the aforesaid Proviso will apply to censure also. The punishment of censure imposed within one year prior to the crucial date or he punishment of censure imposed after the crucial date but before actual promotion, should be held against the Officer. However, the punishment of censure imposed within a period of one year proceeding the crucial date need not be held against the officer if the delinquency had occurred prior to 5 years preceding the crucial date. I am also to clarify that the same censure need not be held against an officer more than once as per the aforesaid Second Proviso in para 411(2) of the Government Letter first cited. Currency of punishment: $ Whenever an Officer is undergoing any punishment, other than Censure, on the crucial date or on the date of consideration, then irrespective of the time of occurrence of the irregularity, his name should be passed over for that panel. If the currency of punishment continues at the time of subsequent consideration for the next panel(s), he should still be passed over on the grounds that an officer should not be considered for promotion or promoted during the currency of any punishment. After the completion of its Currency, no punishment should be held, once again, against an official even it falls within the check period of any panel, if it has already been held against the official on any earlier occasion. 1. $(Substituted in Letter No.52716/S/99-1, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 1.10.1999) 2. After the completion of its Currency, no punishment should be held, once again, against an official even it falls within the check period of any panel, if it has already been held against the official on any earlier occasion. 1. $(Substituted in Letter No.52716/S/99-1, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 1.10.1999) 2. $$ It is further clarified that charges framed under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and any of the punishments awarded after the crucial date and before actual promotion shall also be held against the officer. $$ (substituted in Letter No.No.67652/S/2002-6,Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 27.08.2003) 3. The currency of punishment imposed in the form of recovery of loss will continue till the loss so caused is recovered in full. As such, in cases where punishment of recovery of loss is ordered the name of that individual should not be included in the panel until the entire recovery of loss is effected. (Letter No.52132/s/2000-14, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 3.3.2003) 4. An order imposing any punishment including withholding of increment takes effect from the date on which the said order is communicated to the concerned Government servant. (Letter No.28790/S/2001-1, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 5.7.2001)" Therefore, a combined reading of the said Letter of the Government shows that,-- 1. during the currency of punishment other than censure on the crucial date of preparation of panel for promotion, the candidate's name should be passed over; and 1. a new concept of 'check period' has been created under the said letter meaning thereby that within a period of five years prior to the crucial date, a punishment of censure or even during the said check period the punishment or penalty having been undergone, the Government servant is not entitled for consideration for promotion." 14. That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner invites the attention of this Court to the order dated 17.09.2012 in W.P.No.21737 of 2012 between G.BALU V. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (POL.2) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9, passed by this Court, whereby and whereunder in paragraphs – 7 to 9, it is observed and held thus: "7. A perusal of the punishment order itself would go to show that the currency of punishment imposed on the Petitioner would expire on 18.01.2011 and he would be eligible for promotion on 19.01.2011. A perusal of the punishment order itself would go to show that the currency of punishment imposed on the Petitioner would expire on 18.01.2011 and he would be eligible for promotion on 19.01.2011. Thus, it is crystal clear that as on the crucial date, the Petitioner was fully eligible for being promoted. But, by citing a wrong reason namely, the currency of punishment will extend for a period of 5 years i.e., beyond 20.01.2011, the Petitioner has been denied promotion. This is against the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court. 8. In view of the same, it is absolutely necessary for this Court to issue a direction to the Respondent to promote the Petitioner along with his Junior and keep the Petitioner above Mr.K.M.Sankaran (Sl.No.49). 9. In view of all the above, the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the Respondent to include the Petitioner in the police Note No.9 dated 06.07.2012 and promote him as Deputy Superintendent of Police under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules with effect from the date on which his immediate junior Mr.K.M.Sankaran was promoted and accordingly, fix the seniority of the Petitioner above Mr.K.M.Sankaran. In any event, the consequential order shall be passed by the Respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs." 15. A cursory perusal of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, shows that Rule 2 prescribes the following as Minor Penalties. As a matter of fact, in terms of Rule: 2.(1) the following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason, be imposed upon members of the service, namely: (a) Reprimand in the case of the subordinate specified in items 1 to 4 under the heading "Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service" and in item 1 and 2 under the heading "Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service" in the Schedule. (b) Censure or blackmark in the case of Reserve Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Head Constables and Constables and others of corresponding rank. (c) Withholding of increments or promotion, including stoppage at an efficiency bar. (d) Reduction to a lower rank in the Seniority List or a lower grade, post or time scale or to a lower stage in the same time scale. (b) Censure or blackmark in the case of Reserve Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Head Constables and Constables and others of corresponding rank. (c) Withholding of increments or promotion, including stoppage at an efficiency bar. (d) Reduction to a lower rank in the Seniority List or a lower grade, post or time scale or to a lower stage in the same time scale. (e)(1) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. (2) Recovery from pay to the extent necessary of the monetary value equivalent to the amount of increments ordered to be withheld where such an order cannot be given effect to. EXPLANATION: In cases of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect the monetary value equivalent to three times the amount of increments ordered to be withheld may be recovered. (3) Recovery from pay to the extent necessary of the monetary value of the reduction to a lower stage in a time scale where such an order cannot be given effect to. (f) Suspension for a period not exceeding 15 days in the case of Sub-Inspectors and Constables if the penalty to reduction to a lower grade, post or time scale or to a lower stage in the same time scale cannot be imposed. (g) Suspension, where a person has already been suspended under rule 3 (e) to the extent considered necessary by the authority imposing the penalty." 16. In the Handbook on Police Disciplinary Proceedings written by N.R.Srinivasa Raghavan (published by C.Sitaraman & Co., Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-600 014) in Chapter – III, (A) T.N.P.S.S. (D&A) Rules 1955, Major Penalties are mentioned in Rule 2 for which enjoins as under: Rule 2: (i) Compulsory retirements. (ii) Removal from civil service of the State Government which does not disqualify future employment. (iii) Dismissal from the civil service of the State Government which disqualifies future employment. (iv) Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or a lower grade, post or time scale or to a lower stage in the same time scale. 17. (ii) Removal from civil service of the State Government which does not disqualify future employment. (iii) Dismissal from the civil service of the State Government which disqualifies future employment. (iv) Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or a lower grade, post or time scale or to a lower stage in the same time scale. 17. As a matter of fact, the ingredients of Rules 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 reads as under: Rule 3.(a) In every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service any other penalties mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) of rule 2, he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation, if any shall be taken into consideration before order imposing the penalty is passed. Provided that the requirements of this sub rule shall not apply where it is proposed to impose on a member of the service any of the penalties aforesaid on the basis of facts which have led to his conviction by a Court Marital or where the officer concerned has absconded or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. (G.O.Ms.No.4212 Home dated 27.11.1965) Provided further that in every case where it is proposed, after considering the representation, if any, made by the member of the service to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely on the amount of pension payable to the member of the service or to withhold increments of pay without cumulative effect for a period exceeding 3 years or to withhold of increment of pay with cumulative effect for any period, the procedure laid down in such rule (b) shall be followed before making any order imposing on the member of the service any such penalty." (G.O.Ms.No.2953 Home (Pol-III) dated 10.12.1981) (b)(i) In every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service any of the penalties specified in clauses (d), (h), (l) and (J) of rule 2 the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is framed and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires on oral inquiry or only to be heard in person. An oral inquiry shall be held if such an inquiry is desired by the person charged or is directed by the authority concerned. At that inquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, the person charged shall be entitled to cross examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. After the inquiry has been completed, the person charged shall be entitled to put in; if he so desires, any further written statement of his defence. Whether or not the person charged desired or had an oral enquiry, he shall be heard in person at any stage if he so desires before final orders are passed. After the inquiry has been completed, the person charged shall be entitled to put in; if he so desires, any further written statement of his defence. Whether or not the person charged desired or had an oral enquiry, he shall be heard in person at any stage if he so desires before final orders are passed. A report of the inquiry or personal hearing (as the case may be) shall be prepared by the authority holding the inquiry or personal hearing whether or not such authority is competent to impose the penalty. Such report shall contain a sufficient record of evidence, if any, and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. (G.O.Ms.No.983 Home dated 01.05.1970) Provided that when a Revenue Divisional Officer, or the Chief Presidency Magistrate, as the case may be holding an enquiry under Police Standing Order 145 has given certain findings it is not necessary for the inquiring Police Officer to re-examine the witnesses in departmental enquiry unless the delinquents themselves want cross examination. The inquiring Police Officer may frame charges on the basis of the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Chief Presidency Magistrate, as the case may be, and record cross examination, if any, as a continuation of the statements given before the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Chief Presidency Magistrate, as the case may be, and need not start the proceedings "de-novo". (G.O.Ms.No.3313 Home dated 08.12.1971). In the said Rules, in rule 3, in sub rule (b) in the proviso, for the expression "Provided that" the following shall be substituted, namely: "Provided that if the person charged, to whom a copy of the charge together with a statement of the allegation on which each charge is based and of any other circumstance which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case is communicated, does not submit the writ statement of his defence on or before the date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this rule, inquiring authority may hold the inquiry ex-parte "Provided further that" (G.O.Ms.No.847 Home (Police – V) Dt. 15.06.1999) (ii) After the inquiry or personal hearing referred to in clause (i) has been completed and if the authority competent to impose the penalty specified in that clause, is of the opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry, any of the penalties specified in rule 2 should be imposed on the person charged, it shall, before making an order imposing such penalty, furnish to him a copy of the report of the inquiry or personal hearing or both, as the case may be, call upon to submit his further representation, if any, within a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days. Any representation received on his behalf within the period shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing the penalty, provided that such representation shall be based on the evidence adduced during the inquiry only. It shall not be necessary to give the person charged any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. (G.O.Ms.No.1625 Home (Police – V) dt.10.11.1997) Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing any such penalty. Provided further that in the case of a person appointed to a post in temporary department by recruitment by transfer from any other class or service, the State Government may any time before the appointment of the said person as a full member to the said post, revert him to such other class or service either for want of vacancy or in the event of his becoming surplus to requirement or if the State Government are satisfied that he has not got the necessary aptitude for work in said post, without observing the formalities prescribed in this sub rule. (G.O.Ms.No.2642 Home dt.20.10.1982) 18. (G.O.Ms.No.2642 Home dt.20.10.1982) 18. At this stage, this Court worth recalls and recollects the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDA V. JAGMOHAN SHARMA (1998) 9 SCC Page 219, wherein it is observed and held that 'Where a case is made out that Juniors have been promoted while the petitioner has been denied, the appropriate relief to be granted is not a direction to promote the petitioner but a direction to consider his case for promotion from the date of promotion of his Juniors on the same criteria on which, Juniors were promoted'. 19. Further, in the decision V.K.GUPTA v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI, 1993, Labour and Industrial cases at page 55 (Del), it is held that 'mere pendency of a vigilance case is not a sufficient ground for withholding or denying promotion'. 20. It is to be pointed out that if a promotion has been denied wrongly then the Court will not only direct consideration of the case afresh but may proceed further and direct that if promotions are granted after such consideration then the authorities must also consider what consequential monetary benefits should be allowed. These are the usual directions given in such cases as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (THE STATE OF MYSORE V. SYED MAHAMOOD) AIR 1968 SUPREME COURT PAGE 1113 and at Special Page 1115. 21. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's case comes squarely within the four corners of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THANJAVUR RANGE, THANJAVUR AND ANOTHER V. V.RANI, 2011 (3) CTC 129 , at special pages Nos.39 and 40, (more particularly, paragraph-28) and also the said Full Bench decision was followed by this Court in W.P.No.21737 of 2012 passed the order dated 17.09.2012 between G.BALU V. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (Pol.2) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9, and applying the same, this Court directs the Respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner for upgradation as Grade I Police Constable with effect from 24.05.2009 from the date of promotion of his immediate juniors and for granting of consequential services and monetary benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.