Judgment : R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This writ appeal has been preferred as against the order passed by the learned Judge, dated 28.10.2013 passed in W.P(MD)No.16898 of 2013. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal, are set out thus: 2.1. The respondent is now working as Inspector of Police. When he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, a case in Cr.No.352 of 1999 on the file of Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District, was registered against him and he was prosecuted in S.C.No.398 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, which, ultimately ended in acquittal. However, on the basis of the allegations levelled in the said criminal case, the third appellant herein issued a charge memorandum to the respondent in P.R.No.3 of 2010 dated 20.01.2010, under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, consequent to which, the respondent was placed under suspension. The respondent had challenged the said charge memorandum in W.P.(MD)No.2126 of 2010 and this Court, by order dated 13.06.2011, quashed the same. Thereafter, the said suspension was revoked with effect from 19.06.2009 and the relevant period of suspension, viz., between 03.05.2002 and 18.06.2009, was treated as duty period for all purposes as per F.R.54, vide the order of the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District in C.No.F1/P.R.03/2010 dated 14.07.2012 in D.O.508/2012. The grievance of the respondent was that his name was not included in the panel for promotion for the year 2009-2010 and therefore, he filed the writ petition. 2.2. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials placed, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellants are before this Court. 3. Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Judge had not afforded an opportunity to file a counter affidavit by the appellants so as to put forth the factual situation and that the subsequent punishment imposed on the respondent had not been taken into account by the learned Judge, which would vitiate the order impugned herein. It is his further contention that the respondent had indulged in the activities which ended in punishment on him and that, his claim for inclusion in the panel for the promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) for the year 2009-2010 was not considered and that the learned Judge had not considered the same and hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Judge of this Court. 4. Mr. G.R.Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the punishment imposed in P.R.No.40 of 2011 was only subsequent to the panel which had been prepared for the year 2009-2010 and that the learned Judge had appositely dealt with the same and allowed the writ petition with a direction to the appellants 1 and 2 to include the name of the respondent in the said panel. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ appeal. 5. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record, including the order of the learned Judge of this Court. 6. Though it is contended by the appellants that since the respondent had been dealt with in the subsequent departmental enquiry in P.R.40 of 2011, he is not eligible to be considered for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I), we find that the learned Judge had correctly analysed the relevant materials and held that the subsequent initiation of the departmental enquiry has nothing to do with the panel for the promotion to the said post. 7. It is also seen that the earlier charge memorandum issued as against the respondent, in P.R.No.3 of 2010, dated 20.01.2010, came into existence only after the crucial date and moreover, the same had already been quashed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.2126 of 2010. Further, the learned Judge found that as there was no other legal impediment, the respondent was entitled to be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I), for the year 2009-2010 and therefore, he should be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. 8. Accordingly, we find that the learned Judge had rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and allowed the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, we find that the learned Judge had rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and allowed the writ petition. We, therefore, hold that the order of the learned Judge of this Court warrants no interference at the hands of this Court and the writ appeal fails. 9. In fine, this writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.