JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The sole respondent herein has filed the instant Ext.P-1 original application O.A. (Ekm) No.1480/2017 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, with the following prayers [See page 22 of the paper book of this O.P.]: “(a) To call for the records leading to Annexure A-9 and A-10 and set aside the same; (b) To issue a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the applicant for inclusion in the select list of Sub Inspector for promotion to the post of Circle Inspectors for the year 2006; (c) To declare that the applicant is entitled to be considered for inclusion in the select list of Sub Inspectors for promotion to the post of Circle Inspectors for the year 2006 notwithstanding the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.25/2009 in C.C.No.328/2006; And (d) To issue such other directions or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.” 2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P-3 final order dated 17.1.2020 thereby finally disposing of instant O.A. (Ekm) No.1480/2017 with the specific finding that in view of the subsequent events in relation to the disciplinary proceedings, which has culminated only in the imposition of censure, and other aspects, the denial of regular promotion of the applicant at the behest of the Departmental Promotion Committee [“DPC” for short] decision making process for the select year 2006, in relation to his claims for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police is illegal and ultra vires, and that the competent authority of the DPC will conduct a review and pass appropriate orders including the original applicant in the select list for promotion as Inspector of Police for the select list year 2006, and grant all consequential monetary benefits therefrom within 3 months. It is this final verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-3 rendered on 17.1.2020 that is under challenge before us at the instance of the State of Kerala, the Police Department and the DPC authorities concerned. The present petition has been instituted under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers [See page 9 of the paper book of this O.P.]: “...........set aside the order dated 17.01.2020 in O.A.(EKM) No.1480/2017 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Additional Bench: Ernakulam), pending disposal of the above Original Petition (KAT).” 3. The present petition has been instituted under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers [See page 9 of the paper book of this O.P.]: “...........set aside the order dated 17.01.2020 in O.A.(EKM) No.1480/2017 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Additional Bench: Ernakulam), pending disposal of the above Original Petition (KAT).” 3. Heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners herein/respondents in the O.A. and Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent herein/sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal. 4. The original applicant, who was earlier substantively holding the post of Sub Inspector of Police, was essentially aggrieved by non consideration of his promotion claims to the next higher category post of Inspector of Police, through the regular promotion process at the behest of the DPC. When he was excluded from the select list 2006 as well as select list 2007, he had submitted statutory representation in terms of Rule 28(b) contained in Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “The KS & SSR Part II”], which was rejected later consequent to the alleged pendency of 5 disciplinary proceedings against him, and also citing the ground that he was by then already convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mananthavady, in Calender Case C.C.No.328/2006. The Tribunal has found that subsequently, all the 5 specific cases of disciplinary proceedings have ended up only in imposition of censure, and going by the statutory provision contained in Note 'v' to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS & SSR Part II, censure shall not be taken into account for denial of regular promotion through the DPC process, even in a selection post like the Inspector of Police. 5. Further, it appears that all the 5 cases of disciplinary action, though pending at the initial point of time, have now culminated in imposition of only censure and not any other penalty, be it minor or major as per the provisions of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1958. These are all admitted facts. 5. Further, it appears that all the 5 cases of disciplinary action, though pending at the initial point of time, have now culminated in imposition of only censure and not any other penalty, be it minor or major as per the provisions of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1958. These are all admitted facts. However, for sake of clarity, it may be pertinent to refer to the details of 5 cases of disciplinary action, which are given in para 5 on pages 3 & 4 of Anx.A-6, which is the reply statement dated 26.9.2013 filed by the 2nd respondent in the previous round of litigation in Transferred Application proceedings T.A.No.6313/2012 on the file of the Tribunal, and the same reads as follows [See pages 39 & 40 of the paper book of this O.P.]: “5. It is submitted that as stated by the petitioner, five disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. (i) He was placed under suspension and Oral Enquiry was pending against him vide order No.A2/PR/19/07/KR dated 25.8.07 of IGP, Kannur Range (IG029/07 KR). Memo of Charge was served on 9.12.07. The OE was disposed of by exonerating him from the charges vide Order No.A2/PR/19/07KR dated 10.12.08 with a warning, “to be more careful in future”. (ii) The Non Oral Enquiry pending vide Order No.H2/5251/07/W dated 20.3.07 (H1-PR/6/07) was disposed of by awarding him with a punishment of, “Increment Bar for one year without cumulative effect” vide D.O.No.308/08 dated 19.6.2008 of Superintendent of Police, Wayanad. On review petition, this punishment was modified as “Censure” by Government vide G.O.(Rt.) No.2018/09/Home dated 13.07.2009. (iii) The Non Oral Enquiry pending vide Order No.H1/PR/64/07/W dated 30.09.2007 was disposed of by awarding him a “Censure” vide D.O.No.269/08 dated 12.7.2008 of SP, Wayanad. (iv) The Non Oral Enquiry pending vide Order No.H1/PR/57/07 dated 04.09.2007 was disposed of by awarding him with a punishment of “Increment Bar for one year without cumulative effect” vide D.O.No.261/08 dated 07.07.08 of SP, Wayanad. This punishment was modified as “Censure” by Government vide G.O.(Rt.) No.2019/09/Home dated 13.07.2009. (v) Another Non OE pending against him vide Order No.H1/PR/49/08 W dtd. 2.6.08 was disposed of by awarding a 'Reprimand' vide D.O.No.558/08W dated 19.12.08 of Superintendent of Police, Wayanad.” 6. This punishment was modified as “Censure” by Government vide G.O.(Rt.) No.2019/09/Home dated 13.07.2009. (v) Another Non OE pending against him vide Order No.H1/PR/49/08 W dtd. 2.6.08 was disposed of by awarding a 'Reprimand' vide D.O.No.558/08W dated 19.12.08 of Superintendent of Police, Wayanad.” 6. In that regard, it is also relevant to note that in the said previous round of litigation in T.A.No.6313/2012, the Tribunal has rendered Anx.A-8 verdict on 13.7.2016, whereby the impugned rejection decision of the DPC was quashed and the matter was remitted to the DPC for taking decision afresh, taking note of the fact that all the 5 cases of disciplinary proceedings have ended up in censure, which cannot be taken into account for the purpose of denial of promotion, even to a selection post. However, the DPC has passed the instant impugned Anx.A-9 proceedings dated 20.3.2017 again denying the request of the applicant for regular promotion for the select list year 2006 on the ground that the applicant was convicted in the aforementioned criminal proceedings by the learned Magistrate, which ended in acquittal only on the basis of compromise and therefore, it cannot be treated as a clean acquittal, etc. It is this abovesaid rejection decision of the DPC at Anx.A-9 that is challenge in the instant O.A., which has culminated in the present verdict at Ext.P-3 dated 17.1.2020. 7. It is common ground that there is no dispute for the petitioners herein/respondents in the O.A. that all the abovesaid 5 cases of disciplinary action have ended only in the imposition of censure which cannot be taken into account for the purpose of denial of promotion in view of the aforesaid statutory provision mentioned hereinabove. The only ground of rejection that was urged before the Tribunal was that though the applicant was acquitted by the criminal appellate court as per Anx.A-4, the same was only on the basis of compromise as is recorded therein and therefore, it cannot be said to an honourable acquittal or clean acquittal and hence, the factual aspects discernible from the said impugned criminal proceedings would certainly indicate about the conduct of the applicant as a police officer, and that the said conduct is an undesirable conduct, and that the same has to be taken into account as a relevant ground for denial of promotion claims, etc. 8. 8. During the course of hearing in the previous occasion, the counsel for the respondent herein/original applicant has made a contention that the allegations covered by Anx.A-7(a) penalty proceedings dated 2.11.2012 which culminated in censure is the same as the one covered by the criminal proceedings as per Anx.A-4 criminal appellate judgment of the Sessions Court, which ended in acquittal due to compromise. Taking of said submission, we passed an order on 16.11.2021 directing the competent authority among the petitioners herein, more particularly, the 4th petitioner Inspector General of Police, to give specific factual instructions to the learned Senior Government Pleader as to whether the allegations covered by Anx.A-7(a) penalty proceedings dated 2.11.2012 which culminated in censure are the same as the one covered by the criminal proceedings as per Anx.A-4 criminal appellate judgment of the Sessions Court, which ended in acquittal due to compromise. At the outset, it has to be borne in mind that Anx.A-7(a) is the final proceedings dated 2.11.2012 in penalty proceedings, which has ultimately culminated only in the penalty of censure, as in the other cases mentioned hereinabove. 9. Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that he has been furnished written instructions by the State Police Chief as per letter dated 18.11.2021 stating that the allegations covered by Anx.A-7(a) order dated 2.11.2012 are one and the same as covered by Anx.A-4 criminal appellate judgment dated 18.5.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.25/2009 on the file of the Sessions Court, Wayanad, at Kalpetta. However, it is stated therein that as the criminal appeal has ended in acquittal only on account of compromise as is clearly recorded in Anx.A-4, it cannot be treated as clean acquittal, etc. Further that, though the abovesaid penalty proceedings referred to in Anx.A-7(a) initially proposed provisional decision to award the applicant with punishment of increment bar for one year with cumulative effect, the disciplinary authority has finally disposed of disciplinary case by awarding him censure by taking lenient view as per Anx.A-7(a), etc. 10. So, it is indeed admitted by the petitioners herein that Anx.A-7(a) penalty proceedings has now culminated in censure. Further, it is also admitted that the allegations covered by Anx.A-4 criminal appeal judgment, and the allegations in Anx.A-7(a) censure order are one and the same. 10. So, it is indeed admitted by the petitioners herein that Anx.A-7(a) penalty proceedings has now culminated in censure. Further, it is also admitted that the allegations covered by Anx.A-4 criminal appeal judgment, and the allegations in Anx.A-7(a) censure order are one and the same. It is true that the criminal appellate judgment has been rendered only on account of compromise and resultant acquittal. That is an aspect which is clearly recorded in Anx.A-4 judgment. However, the heart of the matter is that though the factual aspects borne out from the above criminal proceedings, even if it has ended in acquittal as in the instant case, still it could be taken into account to assess on the basis of norms of overall broad probabilities of the situation, and to decide as to whether it is a relevant ground for consideration in the assessment of claims of promotion. If so, appropriate decision could have also been independently taken thereon. However, in the instant case, the self-same allegations has also resulted in disciplinary proceedings, and the disciplinary authority, on their own volition, have now imposed only a punishment of censure, as can be seen from Anx.A-7(a). 11. Going by the statutory norms in the KS & SSR Part II as stated hereinabove, such an order of censure cannot be taken into account for denial of promotion even for a selection post. Therefore, when the overall factual probabilities emerging from the criminal proceedings at Anx.A-4 is taken into account, ultimately, it is for the competent authority concerned to take a fair and reasonable decision in the matter. In the instant case, the competent authority themselves have taken a decision that after assessing the overall broad probabilities on the self-same allegations in the disciplinary proceedings that only an order of censure would suffice, which cannot be used to deny promotion. When that is the position, it cannot be said to be fair or reasonable to again say that regular promotion should be denied on the ground of acquittal as per Anx.A-4, merely because it is on the basis of compromise, especially in view of the censure imposed in the disciplinary enquiry and in view of the provision of KS & SSR Part II as discussed below. 12. 12. Faced in this situation, Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader would urge that the Tribunal has lost sight of the statutory provision contained in Note 'ii' to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS & SSR Part II, which reads as follows: “(ii) The vacancy that would have gone to the Officer but for his suspension for the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him for the imposition of a major penalty should be filled only on a temporary basis by the next person in the approved list. If the Officer concerned is completely exonerated, he will be promoted thereafter to the post filled on a temporary basis, the arrangements made previously being reversed. If the exoneration is not complete, the Departmental Promotion Committee may decide each case on its merits. Where, however, the post which would have gone to the Officer but for his suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him, ceases to exist before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, he will be promoted to the first vacancy that may be available in future if he is found fit for promotion at that time. If the officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for imposition of a minor penalty and who have been provisionally included in the select list are fully exonerated of the charges, their cases for promotion on the basis of such inclusion in the select list shall be considered. If the Officers are not fully exonerated of the charges, the Departmental Promotion Committee may decide each case on its own merit.” 13. It is true that going by the abovesaid statutory provision, if the officers are not fully exonerated of the charges, the DPC may decide each case on its own merits. However, the abovesaid provision contained in Note 'ii' to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS & SSR Part II, should be read harmoniously with the provisions contained in Rule 28(b)(i)(7) Note 'v' thereof, which reads as follows : “A censure under rule 11(1)(i) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 or a warning awarded to proposed to be awarded to an Officer need not be taken into account while considering his case for promotion under Notes (ii), (iii) and (iii a) above.” So, the penalty of censure cannot be invoked even in the case of Note 'ii' supra of Rule 28(b)(i)(7). 14. 14. Indisputably, not only for the 5 disciplinary action mentioned hereinabove, but also in relation to the allegations covered by Anxs.A-4 & A-7(a), the disciplinary authority themselves have consciously and on their own volition have ordered only for censure. Since, censure cannot be taken into account for denial of promotion in view of the abovesaid provision contained in Note 'v' to Rule 28(b)(i)(7), the abovesaid argument of the petitioners cannot be countenanced, as Note 'v' will cover even cases of Note 'ii' supra. If the abovesaid contention is to be accepted by this Court, then it would amount to nullification the abovesaid provision contained in Note 'v' to Rule 28(b)(i)(7). A mere reading of Note 'v' to abovesaid Rule would make it clear that the said mandate contained therein not to take into account censure while considering the case of incumbent for promotion, would cover even cases under Notes 'ii', 'iii' and 'iii a' above, and therefore it also includes Note 'ii' of abovesaid rule. Hence, if the abovesaid argument is accepted, it is as good as making the abovesaid provision contained in Note 'v' to the Rule above, as almost nugatory. In the light of these aspects, we are of the firm view that the Tribunal cannot be seriously faulted with for arriving at the impugned conclusion as per the verdict at Ext.P-3. 15. Certain other grounds have been urged by the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioners. The first of said ground is on the basis of Ground 'F', given on page 9 of the present O.P., which reads as follows: “F. The Hon'ble Tribunal now ordered, to place the case of the applicant before the review Departmental Promotion Committee and pass appropriate orders to include him in the select list of promotion as Circle Inspector, for the year 2006. There is no relevance to the select list issued vide No.T4/19440/2017 dated 30.03.2017 since the same was revised vide Notification No. T4/137066/2018 PHQ dated 24.11.2018 based on the revised seniority list issued vide PHQ order No. E2/18119/2016 dated 11.07.2018. As per the latest revised seniority list, the petitioner is eligible to be considered to the vacancies from 2008 onwards, since the petitioners seniority position does not enable him to be considered for the year 2006-2007. As per the latest revised seniority list, the petitioner is eligible to be considered to the vacancies from 2008 onwards, since the petitioners seniority position does not enable him to be considered for the year 2006-2007. He has been time and again considered by various DPC's but ultimately assigned in the select list of 2010 and was promoted vide DGO 314/2011 dated 05.03.2011. This was the earliest possible seniority he could be assigned in the select lists given in his service record and stipulations in Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules 1958.” 16. It is pointed out to us that the matter in Ground 'F' was already dealt with in para 17 of Ext.P-2 reply statement dated 11.2.2019 filed by the respondents in the present O.A. before the Tribunal. The said para 17 of Ext.P-2 reply statement reads as follows : “17. It is to be noted that the seniority list of the Sun Inspectors of the Police was revised vide PHQ order No.E2-24772/2014 dated 04.11.2016. In the revised seniority list, the ranking of many SIs had been interchanged. Due to revision of seniority list it becomes necessary to revise the select list of SIs fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the vacancies in the years w.e.f., 2006 to 2011. Since the position of the applicant had been lowered in the seniority list of SI, he became eligible for consideration in the select at of SIs fit for Inspector of Police for the vacancies in the year 2008 only. Due to pending disciplinary proceedings, he was superseded from the above select list. The DPC(Lower) held on 06.02.2017 had decided to include him the select list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the vacancies in the year 2010. Since the seniority list of SIs has been revised, applicant cannot be considered for inclusion in the zone for preparation of Select list of SIs for the year 2006 (for the vacancies in the year 2007). He was already included in the select list of Sis fit for promotion as CIs for the vacancies in the year 2010 and his claim for restoration of the seniority in the select list of Sis(ie; for the vacancies in the year 2008) cannot be considered due to the facts mentioned above.” 17. He was already included in the select list of Sis fit for promotion as CIs for the vacancies in the year 2010 and his claim for restoration of the seniority in the select list of Sis(ie; for the vacancies in the year 2008) cannot be considered due to the facts mentioned above.” 17. After hearing both sides, we asked a pertinent question to the petitioners as to whether they have urged those aspects borne out from the present O.P. and para 17 of Ext.P-2 reply statement before the Tribunal. We said so because, a reading of Ext.P-3 final verdict of the Tribunal would disclose that all the arguments of both sides have been considered on a comprehensive basis. We are now given to understand that the abovesaid contention based on Ground 'F' of this O.P. has not been urged before the Tribunal. If such a contention has not been urged before the Tribunal, we are not in a position to consider those aspects while sitting in supervisory jurisdiction. 18. That apart, Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent herein/sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal would submit that the said aspects in Ground 'F' have never been urged, but also that the said aspects will not make any material difference to the claim of the petitioners for promotion for the select list in question. We need not get into those aspects for the simple reason that contentions which are now been urged before the Tribunal need not detain our consideration, etc. 19. Lastly, it is urged by Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners herein/respondents in the O.A. that the Tribunal should not have ordered as per Ext.P-3 that the applicant should also be given all consequential monetary benefits and that the period of select list is 2006 and a long period has elapsed and it is indisputable that the applicant has never discharged functions and duties of the post in question which is a higher post, and further that there is also no dispute that the duties and functions of the feeder category post of Sub Inspector of Police and the present promotion post of Inspector of Police are vastly different and distinct. 20. Further, we are also told that the applicant was already promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 2010. 20. Further, we are also told that the applicant was already promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 2010. If that be so, the period of arrears of pay and allowances would be only for about 4 years or so. After hearing, we suggested to both sides as to whether the applicant could be promoted for the select list year 2006 as ordered by the Tribunal, but subject to the condition that the other issues based on Ground 'F' of the O.P. as well as the issue relating to consequential monetary benefits may be agitated by the State in a review petition that may be filed before the Tribunal. 21. Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent herein/original applicant would fairly submit on the basis of instructions of his party that the applicant has suffered much, and he wants to put a full quietus to this litigation, and that he would even concede that if the applicant is regularly promoted for the select list year 2006 as ordered by the Tribunal, then the issues relating to Ground 'F' of the O.P., and the consequential monetary benefits may be agitated by the State in a separate review petition, and if the abovesaid condition of promotion for the select year 2006 is complied with by the State, then the original applicant will not oppose the review petition on the basis of delay, and would contest the arguments of review on all other available grounds. 22. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that he has no instructions on those aspects. 23. However, we are of the firm view that the Tribunal cannot be in any manner be seriously faulted with for having directed the State and the DPC authorities to promote the original applicant as Inspector of Police for the select list year 2006. If, as a matter of fact, the applicant has already been promoted to the cadre of Inspector of Police for the year 2010, then the issue of arrears of pay and allowances is only for a relatively less period of 4 years or so. In the light of these aspects, it is ordered that the petitioners will immediately comply with the main directions of the Tribunal to promote the original applicant as Inspector of Police for the select list year 2006, within 6 weeks. 24. In the light of these aspects, it is ordered that the petitioners will immediately comply with the main directions of the Tribunal to promote the original applicant as Inspector of Police for the select list year 2006, within 6 weeks. 24. In case, the petitioners comply with the said direction, then they will be at liberty to file a review petition before the Tribunal along with a formal application to condone delay, urging the aspects borne out from Ground 'F' of the O.P., and para 17 of Ext.P-2 reply statement and other related aspects, as well as the issues relating to grant of consequential monetary benefits, etc. 25. We make it clear that if, the petitioners does not even show fairness to that extent, then there is no question of giving any liberty to them to prosecute those other issues of review proceedings. In such a scenario, the petitioners herein will have to comply with all the directions of the Tribunal as per Ext.P-3. The directions and orders of the Tribunal at Ext.P-3 will stand modified to the limited extent as above. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition (KAT) will stand disposed of.