Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 305 (MAD)

T. Chandramohan v. Director General of Police

2014-02-07

R.SUBBIAH

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition, challenging the order of the first respondent dated 22.1.2014 and to direct the respondents to promote him as Inspector of Police, category-I by including his name in the 'C' list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 2011-2012 without reference to the charge memo issued to him on 18.12.2013 in P.R.No.94 of 2013 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with his juniors. 2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is set out hereunder:- (a) The petitioner is a directly recruited Sub Inspector of Police through a selection conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board. He joined duty on 22.5.2000. Subsequently, he has successfully completed his probation. He 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 fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the panel year 2011-12. The crucial date for preparation of the penal is 1.6.2011. (b) When the panel was published on 4.8.2012, the name of the petitioner was not included, but, at the same time, the petitioner's juniors by name A.Gnanasekaran and S.Naga Kavitha at Sl.Nos.31 and 31 respectively were promoted. The reason for deferring the claim of the petitioner for promotion has not been communicated. (c) The petitioner has reason to believe that his claim for promotion as Inspector of Police has been deferred on the ground that he was facing criminal case registered in Crime No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Special Investigation Cell, Chennai under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A false case was registered against the petitioner based on the complaint preferred by one Mahadevan and based on the said complaint, a trap was made and after conducting a mock trap, the petitioner was apprehended. Following the criminal case, the petitioner was suspended from service by the orders of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram on 5.4.2010. In the said criminal case, after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2010. Following the criminal case, the petitioner was suspended from service by the orders of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram on 5.4.2010. In the said criminal case, after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2010. (d) After trial, the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner on merits on 23.1.2013. Following the same, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 26.2.2013 and he was posted to serve at B.1, Sivakanchi Police Station. As on 4.8.2012, when the 'C' list was published, the petitioner was not facing any disciplinary proceedings. Hence, he is entitled to get promotion as Inspector of Police by including his name in the 'C' list for the panel year 2011-12 and he should be promoted and granted seniority on par with his juniors. In this regard, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondents on 4.7.2013, requesting them to promote him as Inspector of Police on par with his juniors, for which there is no response. (e) Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.19523 of 2013. This Court allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, viz., the third respondent herein had issued the charge memo dated 17.12.2013 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, containing a charge viz., the petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification from one Mahadevan for releasing his JCB and lorry detained in the police station. The said order has already been challenged before this Court on various grounds. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent dated 22.1.2014 and to direct the respondents to promote him as Inspector of Police, category-I by including his name in the 'C' list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 2011-2012 without reference to the charge memo issued to him on 18.12.2013 in P.R.No.94 of 2013 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with his juniors. 3. 3. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is a directly recruited Sub Inspector of Police through a selection conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board. His next promotion is to the post of Inspector of Police. The petitioner has also 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 fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the panel year 2011-2012. The crucial date for preparation of the panel is 1.6.2011 and the date of consideration is 4.8.2012. Either on the crucial date or on the date of consideration, the petitioner was neither facing any charge memo nor any currency of punishment. But, his name was not included in the 'C' list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the panel year 2011-2012, whereas his juniors' names viz., A.Gnanasekaran and S.Naga Kavitha were included and they were promoted on the same day. The reason for non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the 'C' list is that a criminal case was pending against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2010 before the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet. But, in the said criminal case, judgment was delivered on 23.1.2013, acquitting the petitioner on merits. After acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 26.2.2013. Since the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, his claim for promotion as Inspector of Police has to be considered on par with his juniors, who were already promoted and are serving in the post. While situation stood thus, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, has issued a charge memo in P.R. No.94 of 2013 dated 17.12.2013 under Section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, containing a charge viz., the petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification from one Mahadevan for releasing his JCB and lorry detained in the police station, which was involved in a sand theft case. In view of the subsequent charge memo dated 17.12.2013 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the request of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police was turned down by the first respondent by the impugned order dated 22.1.2014. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. Now, the question that falls for consideration is, whether the subsequent charge memo dated 17.12.2013 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, after the pronouncement of the judgment in the criminal case acquitting the petitioner, will be a bar to include the name of the petitioner in the 'C' list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the panel year 2011-2012. 6. In this regard, the order of this Court made in W.P.No.1277 of 2009 dated 15.9.2009 in the case of P.Chinnadurai vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes & registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another, which was relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, gives a fitting answer to the said question. In the said writ petition, this Court has held as follows:- "19. ... the mere pendency of second charge memo dated 17.11.2008 cannot be a bar for inclusion of the petitioner in the panel for District Registrar for the year 1999-2000 considering the fact that in respect of the panel for District Registrar for the year 1999-2000, either on the crucial date viz., 1.4.1999 or on the date of consideration viz., 3.4.2003 or on the date of actual promotion viz., 30.4.2003 in which his junior was promoted as District Registrar, there was no formulated charge memo pending against the petitioner except the criminal case which ultimately ended in acquittal, and the petitioner was not kept under suspension. In such circumstances, the reliance placed by the respondents on the instructions of the Government letter dated 7.10.2005, to deny the promotion on the basis of pendency of criminal case which later ended in acquittal is not sustainable and therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. In such circumstances, the reliance placed by the respondents on the instructions of the Government letter dated 7.10.2005, to deny the promotion on the basis of pendency of criminal case which later ended in acquittal is not sustainable and therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. " A reading of the said order would show that when there is no currency of punishment on the crucial date or on the date of consideration, the subsequent charge memo cannot be a bar for inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel for promotion. In the instant case, the only hurdle for including the name of the petitioner on the crucial date viz., 1.6.2011 and the date of consideration viz., 4.8.2012, is the pendency of the criminal case pending against the petitioner. In the said criminal case, judgment was delivered on 23.1.2013 acquitting the petitioner. When once the petitioner gets acquittal in the criminal case, absolutely there is no legal impediment in including the petitioner's name in the 'C' list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the panel year 2011-2012, since there is no currency of punishment on the date of preparation of the panel and on the date of consideration. The second charge memo issued subsequent to the acquittal, will not be a bar for including the name of the petitioner in the panel. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the relief that has been sought for by him. 7. In the result, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 22.1.2014 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Police, category-I by including his name in the 'C' list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 2011-2012 without reference to the charge memo issued to the petitioner on 18.12.2013 in P.R.No.94 of 2013 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with his juniors. The said exercise has to be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.