JUDGMENT 1. Writ Petition No.25485 of 2013 has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in RC.No.150413/NGBI(1)/2012, dated 15.12.2012, and to quash the same and further to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Police in pursuance of inclusion of his name in the temporary C list of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Taluk) fit for promotion as Inspector of Police (Taluk) for the panel year 2011-12 as per the order issued by the respondent in C.No.666/NGBV(1)/P/25/C list/2011/12/3 dated 04.08.2012 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. Writ Petition No.27186 of 2013 has been filed prayer for issuance of a writ of certorari to call for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in RC.No.56567/Con 1(2)/2011, dated 09.09.2013 and quash the same. 3. The petitioner entered the services as a directly recruited Gr-II Police Constable and joined the service on 31.05.1986. After serving for number of years, the petitioner participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by direct recruitment as a 20% departmental candidate and he came out successfully and he was appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on 22.05.2000. The petitioner has attained sufficient seniority and merit for consideration of his claim for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police by including his name in the 'C' list of Sub-Inspector of Police (Taluk), fit for promotion as Inspector of Police (Taluk) for the year 2011-12. The crucial date for the preparation of the panel was 01.06.2011 and on that date, the petitioner was not facing any charge memo proceedings. The respondent published 'C' list vide RC.No.666/NGBV(1)/C/25/CP/2012/3, dated 04.08.2012, consisting of as many as 88 Sub-Inspectors of Police, who were found fit for promotion as Inspector of Police and in the said list the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Sl.No.8. Following the same, the petitioner was ordered to be promoted and he was allotted to North Zone. The Inspector General of Police, North Zone, in his proceedings dated 07.08.2012 allotted the petitioner to Villupuram Range in the existing vacancy and the petitioner was relieved from the post on 13.02.2012 AN from Villupuram District. He reported for duty in the Zonal Office on 17.08.2012 for further posting. The Inspector General of Police, North Zone, in his proceedings dated 07.08.2012 allotted the petitioner to Villupuram Range in the existing vacancy and the petitioner was relieved from the post on 13.02.2012 AN from Villupuram District. He reported for duty in the Zonal Office on 17.08.2012 for further posting. The petitioner was relieved on 17.08.2012 AN with instructions to report before the DIG of Police, Villupuram range immediately for further posting. But, the petitioner was kept in the vacancy reserve, though promoted. 4. While so, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 03.09.2012 stating that the petitioner was facing a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules in PR.No.03/VPC/2011, dated 05.08.2011, and he was asked to submit a reply as to why his name, which has been included in the temporary 'C' list of Inspector of Police for the panel year 2011-12, should not be removed and treated as cancelled. Hence, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.34293/2012 before this Court challenging the said show cause notice, but subsequently, on advice, he withdrew the said writ petition and submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 24.09.2012. But, the respondent by his proceedings dated 15.12.2012 cancelled the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the temporary 'C' list of Sub-Inspectors, fit for promotion as Inspectors of Police for the panel year 2011-12 as published on 04.08.2012. Pursuant to the same, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range, Villupuram, vide his proceedings RO.No.380/2012 dated 22.12.2012 reverted the petitioner, who was promoted as Inspector of Police, to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram, in his proceedings dated 23.01.2013 issued further order and posted the petitioner to Villupuram District. 5. The petitioner had served in the Video Piracy Cell, CB CID Coimbaore Unit from 22.11.2008 to 04.06.2009. For the misconduct of the petitioner during the said period, the petitioner, along with his immediate superior officer – Inspector of Police viz., on AP Krishnaswamy, was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules by the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Chennai-16, vide proceedings VPC/P6/2012 dated 05.08.2011. On completion of enquiry against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has filed a reported dated 16.10.2012 holding that the Charge No.1 has been proved and Charge No.2 has not been proved. On completion of enquiry against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has filed a reported dated 16.10.2012 holding that the Charge No.1 has been proved and Charge No.2 has not been proved. The petitioner was directed to give further representation in respect of Charge No.1 alone. After the petitioner submitted his further representation, the DIG of Police, CB CID, SIT, Chennai, in his order dated 07.02.103 has held that the Charge No.1 was not proved and accepted the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of Chearge No.2, which was also not proved, and further action against the petitioner was dropped. Thus, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges by the order of the DIG of Police, CB CID, SIT, Chennai dated 07.02.2013. Following the dropping of the charges, it has to be presumed that the petitioner is not facing any charge memo as on 04.08.2012, the date on which his name was included in the 'C' list and promoted as Inspector of Police. Subsequently, the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Chennai, suo motu reviewed the exoneration order and confirmed the same on 16.04.2013. The petitioner had made a representation to the respondent on 20.02.2013, after exoneration of the charges, requesting to restore the name of the petitioner in the original place in 'C' list fit for promotion as Inspector of Police and to restore the promotion order, for which there was no response. Again the petitioner has made another representation on 19.08.2013, for which also there is no response from the respondent. 6. Hence, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.25485 of 2013 to call for the records of the respondent in connection with the proceedings in RC.No.150413/NGBI(1)/2012, dated 15.12.2012, and to quash the same and further to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Police in pursuance of inclusion of his name in the temporary C list of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Taluk) fit for promotion as Inspector of Police (Taluk) for the panel year 2011-12. 7. After filing the said writ petition (W.P.No.25485 of 2013), the respondent has issued the show cause notice dated 09.09.2013 stating that he is disagreeing with the orders issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CB CID, SIT, Chennai dated 07.02.2013, in respect of dropping of the Charge No.1 and he has taken up the matter suo motu and held that the 1st charge is held to be proved. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why any of the penalties specified in Rule 2 of the TNPSS (D &A) Rules, 1955 should not be imposed on the petitioner for the proved charges and the petitioner was directed to submit his reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.27186 of 2013 before this Court. 8. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader and perused the materials available on record. 9. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on two folds:- 9(1) The petitioner was exonerated of the charges by the order of the DIG of Police, CB CID, SIT Chennai, dated 07.02.2013. Following the dropping of the charges, it has to be presumed that the petitioner is not facing any charge as on 04.08.2012, the date on which his name was included in the 'C' list and promoted as Inspector of Police. Further, the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Chennai, has also reviewed the exoneration order and confirmed the same on 16.04.2013. But, the respondent herein has taken up the matter suo motu and reviewed the matter by the impugned proceedings dated 09.09.2013, which is beyond six months limitation period as prescribed in the Service Rules. Hence, the suo motu review made by the respondent herein is barred by limitation. 9(2) The petitioner was exonerated of the charges by the order of the DIG of Police, CB CID, SIT Chennai, dated 07.02.2013. Thereafter, subsequently, the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Chennai, has also reviewed the exoneration order and confirmed the same on 16.04.2013. While such being the position, the second review proceedings initiated by the Head of the Department, viz., the respondent herein is impermissible in the eye of law. The Service Rules did not provide more than one review. 10. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that suo motu review beyond six months period from the date of exonerating the petitioner from the charges is barred by limitation. The Service Rules did not provide more than one review. 10. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that suo motu review beyond six months period from the date of exonerating the petitioner from the charges is barred by limitation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Rule 15-A(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, which runs as follows:- Rule 15-A(1)_Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules (i) the State Government or (ii) the Head of the department directly under the State Government, in the case of Government Servant serving in a department of office under the control of such Head of Department; or (ii) the appellate authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed; or (iii) the appellate authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed; or (iv) any other authority specified in this behalf of the State Government by general of special order, and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order may at any time, either on their or its own motion or otherwise call for the records or any inquiry and review any order made under these rules, after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission where such consultation is necessary and may. (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty whether no penalty has been imposed; or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority, directing such authority to make such further enquiry, as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit. Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any reviewing authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed. Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any reviewing authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed. Where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (d), (e), (f), (h), (i) and (j) of Rule 2 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rule (b) of rule (3) and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the Government Servant Concerned of showing cause against the penalty proposed on the evidence adduced during the inquiry and except after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary.” A reading of the above said Rule, it is clear that the period of limitation for reviewing the order by the appellate authority is within six months from the date of order proposed to be reviewed. In the instant case, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges by order dated 07.02.2013 passed by the DIG of Police, CB CID, SIT, Chennai. Six months period of limitation came to an end on 06.08.2013. Whereas, the respondent herein has taken up the matter suo motu on 09.09.2013, i.e., after six months period was over and after filing the writ petition in W.P.No.25485 of 2013 by the petitioner before this Court. As per Rule 15-A (1) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, the suo motu review made by the respondent herein beyond six months period of limitation cannot be sustainable in law. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, delivered by this Court in W.P.Nos.34143 & 39895 of 2006, dated 14.07.2009, [R.Neelamegam Vs. Director General of Police, Chennai and two others], wherein it has been held as follows:- “the fact that the Director General of Police, Chennai has issued the show cause notice on 17.04.1997, beyond the prescribed period of limitation for six months under rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules is not disputed. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable to the limited extent of the period initiation of suo-motu review proceedings. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable to the limited extent of the period initiation of suo-motu review proceedings. As the initiation of suo-motu review proceedings is beyond the prescribed period, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is without jurisdiction and consequently, the enhanced penalty is set aside.” A reading of the above said judgment, I find that in an identical set of facts this Court has set aside the suo-motu review on the ground of limitation. Therefore, considering the above said Rule and also taking note of the above said judgment delivered by this Court, I am of the opinion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. That part, it is yet another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of exoneration dated 07.02.2013 has already been reviewed by the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Chennai, on 16.04.2013. The second review by the respondent herein is not permissible under the Service Law and Service Rules. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.13611 of 2011, dated 12.07.2013, [C.Vijya Baskar Vs. Director General of Police and others], wherein it has been held as follows:- “4. The question as to whether a second show cause notice in exercise of suo-motu power under Rule 15(A)(1)(ii) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules is sustainable as per law was considered by this Court in W.P.No.13541 of 2007, decided on 14.10.2009, and held thus: “16. I have considered the submissions made on either side. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are well founded. The learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submissions that once the Head of the Department exercised its suo-motu power of review under Rule 15-A(1)(ii) of the Rules, thereafter the suo-motu power of review is not available to the Government, under the same Rule 15-A(1)(i) of the Rules. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the word "OR" alone is used in Rule 15-A(1) of the Rules, instead of "AND". As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the word "OR" alone is used in Rule 15-A(1) of the Rules, instead of "AND". If the power of the respondent to invoke Rule 15-A(1)(i) of the Rules is accepted, even after the same power of review is exercised by the Head of the Department under Rule 15-A(1) of the Rules, then it makes no sense for using the word "OR" in the Rules. I am also in entire agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the word "OR" is used with the laudable objective of the exercises of the power for one time and thereafter the power is dried up. The analogy drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner by reading Rules 15-A(3) and 15-A(4) deserves acceptance. The Rule permits the delinquent employee to prefer review petition either of the authorities. If the review application of the delinquent has reached finality in view of passing of an order by an authority, thereafter the review power under Rule 15-A(1) before different authority cannot be invoked by the delinquent employee. On the same analogy, the respondent also cannot invoke its suo-motu power, once the Head of the Department had exercised the power of review, under Rule 15-A(1)(ii). 17. The judgment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in K.Palanichamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and 4 others, dated 14.11.2002 also squarely applies to the facts of this case. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment, which is relevant to decide this case, is extracted here-under:- "5. Therefore, if the Head of the Department has already taken a review, the State is precluded from taking further review. This is only in consonance with the general principle underlying the procedural law. There cannot be a review of review. Review is provided only to prevent miscarriage of justice and therefore there cannot be a review of review order. Moreover, either the State by itself can review the order if all other authorities mentioned in Rule 15-A failed to review and if review is called for, for rendering justice. If the Head of the Department has done it, the State is precluded from again reviewing the order of the reviewing authority namely the Head of the Department. Moreover, either the State by itself can review the order if all other authorities mentioned in Rule 15-A failed to review and if review is called for, for rendering justice. If the Head of the Department has done it, the State is precluded from again reviewing the order of the reviewing authority namely the Head of the Department. Moreover Rule 15(A) (3) and (4) provides that no application for review shall be preferred more than once in respect of the same order. A delinquent Government servant who has preferred a review against the punishment to one of the authorities specified in Rule 15-A, cannot prefer a second review to the other authority mentioned in Rule 15-A. So, even delinquent Government Servant cannot prefer two reviews which only stands to the common sense and reason. The authorities also cannot undertake two review of the same order. Therefore, the second review by the State Government after the original order has been reviewed by the Head of the Department will not lie." In view of the aforesaid conclusions, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. The above said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the second review made by the respondent herein is not permissible in law. 12. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 09.09.2013 passed by the respondent herein is liable to be quashed on the grounds that it is hit by limitation and the second review is not permissible in law. In fine, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 09.09.2013 and 15.12.2012 passed by the respondent herein are quashed and the respondent is directed to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Police by including his name in 'C' list of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Taluk), fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the panel years 2011-12, and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed No costs.