JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The sole applicant herein has filed the instant Ext.P-1 Original Application O.A. No. 540/2021 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, and prayers in the amended Ext.P-1 O.A. are as follows [See pages 36 & 37 of the paper book of this OP(KAT)]: “i. To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to issue direction to convene ad-hoc Departmental promotion committee (Lower) and direction may be given to promote the applicant as Inspector of police for the vacancy arisen on 2017. ii. To issue appropriate orders to quash the annexure A4, Annexure A7, Annesure A13 and Annexure A14 and A18 which is illegal and arbitrary. iii. To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents not to supersede the applicant in the select list Annexure A12 due to the reason that applicant is entitled to be promoted as on 2017 and annexure A14 ordinance is not having retrospective effect. iv. Applicant is entitled to be promoted as Inspector of Police in the zone of consideration for the year 2017 and rejecting the same issuing Annexure A18 which is a recent incident and applicant is to be promoted above Vinoy KJ 433 and below Gireesh Kumar I, 431 as the vacancy of Inspector was arisen on 2017 in tune with annexure A3 seniority list. v. Grant any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.” 2. v. Grant any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.” 2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P-3 order dated 10.8.2021 finally disposing of O.A. No. 540/2021 with the finding that the denial of promotion to the applicant from the post of Sub Inspector of Police to the next higher category of Inspector of Police for the select list 2017, for the reasons stated by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is illegal and ultra vires, and that the modified penalty was only bar of increment for one year without cumulative effect and therefore, the applicant will get the benefit of the protective provision contained in Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, as it stood then, and hence, the said penalty cannot be taken into account for barring the promotion of the applicant and it was directed that the 4th respondent will convene the Review Departmental Promotion Committee (Lower) and pass appropriate orders including the applicant in the select list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the select list 2017, and issue consequential orders of promotion w.e.f. the date of promotion of his immediate junior considered for select list year 2017 within 3 months, etc. It is this final verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-3 that is under challenge in the present Original Petition filed at the instance of the State of Kerala and the Police Departmental authorities concerned. The prayer in the instant Original Petition filed before this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows : “...........set aside Exhibit P3 impugned order dated 10.08.2021 in OA No.540/2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, by allowing this Original Petition.” 3. Heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P./respondents 1 to 4 in the O.A. and Sri.P.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P./sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal. 4. The matter in issue is regarding the claim of the applicant who is holding the post of Sub Inspector of Police for promotion to the next higher category post of Inspector of Police for the select list year 2017 & 2018. 4. The matter in issue is regarding the claim of the applicant who is holding the post of Sub Inspector of Police for promotion to the next higher category post of Inspector of Police for the select list year 2017 & 2018. Going by the nature of the reliefs granted in this O.A. by the Tribunal, we are confining our consideration only in relation to the claim of the applicant for promotion for the select list 2017. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for preparation of select list for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police from the select list 2017 was held on 1.3.2017, and the said DPC had superseded the claim of the applicant on two grounds. Firstly that, he was placed under suspension from service and an oral enquiry was ordered against him on 18.11.2015 and memo of charges was also issued on 2.2.2016 which was then pending, and secondly that the applicant was accused in 33 cheating cases. The ground cited regarding the alleged involvement in 33 cheating cases is a mistake of fact, and the said ground has been given up by the respondents in the O.A. The first objection regarding memo of charges issued on 2.2.2016 is relevant for determining the eligibility and entitlement of the applicant for promotion on the basis of the criteria merit-cum-suitability to the next higher category of Inspector of Police for the select list year 2017 as it comes within the relevant period of consideration for such promotion. It is common ground that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant based on said memo of charges dated 2.2.2016 was finalized, which led to the issuance of Anx.A-9 penalty order dated 1.12.2017 resulting in a penalty of barring of one increment with cumulative effect. It is also common ground that the applicant had preferred a statutory appeal against Anx.A-9 penalty order, which culminated in appellate order dated 13.6.2018, which reduced the said penalty as bar of one increment without cumulative effect. Therefore, the said appellate order dated 13.6.2018 reducing penalty as bar of one increment without cumulative effect, will substitute and take the place of original penalty order as per Anx.A-9 dated 1.12.2017, and therefore in the eye of law, it has to be treated that the penalty imposed on the applicant on 1.12.2017 was barring of one increment without cumulative effect and not otherwise. But, for the protective provisions contained in Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act, the said penalty of even barring of one increment without cumulative effect, could have been considered as a relevant ground as regards the issue regarding the entitlement of the applicant for promotion in this case. However, apart from the provisions contained in KS & SSR Part II Rule 28 thereof, etc which are applicable for all government personnels including police officers, special provisions have been made to regulate the conditions of service of police personnel as contained in Secs.101(4) & 101 (6) of the Kerala Police Act, which then governed the field. 5. Subsections 4 & 6 of Section 101 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, as it stood at the relevant time read as follows: “101. Departmental Enquiry Proceedings. (1) Any Police Officer, who commits conduct or offence under this Act or any other Act for the time being in force or order made thereunder may be subjected to departmental enquiry proceedings under the Kerala Police Departmental Enquiries (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1958 led by the Government. (2) …....................xxxx…...........xxxx..........................xxxx......................... (3) …....................xxxx…...........xxxx..........................xxxx......................... (4) The competent officer or the Government may impose any of the following penalties mentioned in items (a) to (q) below against any Police Officer found guilty on completion of the department level inquiry, (a) fine; (b) extra duty including drill and physical training; (c) recovery of loss caused to Government from salary; (d) recovery of loss sustained to the concerned party from salary; (e) giving training to improve work and conduct; (f) prohibit from performing fixed a particular duties or assigning fixed particular rank; (g) warning; (h) censure; (i) barring increment without cumulative effect; (j) barring increment with cumulative effect; (k) withholding of promotion; (l) reducing pay without cumulative effect; (m) reducing pay with cumulative effect; (n) reduction in seniority or rank; (o) compulsory retirement; (p) removal; (q) dismissal. (5) …....................xxxx…...........xxxx..........................xxxx......................... (6) The penalties stated in items (a) to (j) above shall not be treated as a bar for the promotion of a Police Officer.” 6. Hence, from a combined reading of Subsections 4 & 6 of Sec.101 of the Kerala Police Act as it stood then, a punishment of barring of increment without cumulative effect is one covered by Clause (i) of Sec.101(4). Hence, from a combined reading of Subsections 4 & 6 of Sec.101 of the Kerala Police Act as it stood then, a punishment of barring of increment without cumulative effect is one covered by Clause (i) of Sec.101(4). Further, going by the mandate contained in Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act as it stood at the relevant time, the penalties enumerated as items (a) to (j) of Sec.101(4) of the Act shall not normally be treated as a bar for promotion of a police officer. Subsequently, the protective provision contained in Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act has been deleted from the statute book by an amendment made thereto which has been come into force w.e.f. 8.1.2019. If the protective provision contained in Sec.101(6) of the Act is applicable in the instant case as far as the claim of the applicant for promotion for the select list year 2017 is concerned, then the said provision would mandate that the instant penalty of barring of one increment without cumulative effect shall not ordinarily be treated as a bar for promotion of a police officer, notwithstanding the provisions contained in KS & SSR Part II, including the provision contained in Rule 28 thereof. It appears that, one of the contentions strongly urged by the petitioners herein is that in view of the subsequent amendment made effective from 8.1.2019 deleting Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act from the statute book, the beneficial provision will not come for the rescue of the applicant in the instant case. So, the issue posed before us is as to whether the said beneficial provision contained in Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act would apply in the instant case as far as the claim of the applicant for promotion for select list year 2017 is concerned. 7. Yet another objection is also taken by the petitioners in the O.P./respondents in the O.A. against the claim of the applicant on the ground that a subsequent memo of charges has been issued against the applicant on 13.12.2019 on the basis of an oral enquiry order dated 6.10.2019, in respect of a different disciplinary proceedings. That aspect of the matter will be considered by us later. 8. The matter in issue relating to the claim of the applicant for the protection of beneficial provision contained in Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act is no longer res integra. That aspect of the matter will be considered by us later. 8. The matter in issue relating to the claim of the applicant for the protection of beneficial provision contained in Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court as per Anx.A-17 common judgment dated 16.11.2019 in OP(KAT) No.253/2019 & connected cases, has dealt with a series of cases wherein the right to be considered for promotion going by the date of occurrence of vacancy, etc and the adverse penalty orders suffered by the employees therein related to a period which occurred prior to 8.1.2019, on which date only the Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act stood deleted from the statute book. It may be pertinent to refer to the contents of paras 20 & 21 of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Anx.A-17 O.P.(KAT) No.253/2019 & connected cases, which read as follows: “20. The provisions of the KS&SSR specifically speak of a 'Select list' prepared on the assessment of merit and ability. Janakiraman & K.S.Murugesan in categoric terms declare that a penalty imposed or the employee being under the rigour of penalty, in the assessment years is a relevant consideration for assessment of merit and ability. However, in the instant case the Legislature in its wisdom avoided certain penalties from consideration in the case of police personnel. None can challenge the wisdom of the Legislature. We do not think the learned Senior Government Pleader is correct in saying that such bar from consideration of penalties applies only when a person is included in the select list. Such an interpretation will render otiose sub-section (6) of Section 101 of the Police Act. The bar applies at all times when a person is considered for promotion, equally to the DPC, assessing merit and suitability and the appointing authority, who makes promotions from the 'Select list'. Janakiraman & K.S.Murugesan would not be applicable in the teeth of the special provisions in the statute (Police Act) regulating the service/promotion of police personnel, which is also later in time to the general rules of the KS&SSR. 21. Janakiraman & K.S.Murugesan would not be applicable in the teeth of the special provisions in the statute (Police Act) regulating the service/promotion of police personnel, which is also later in time to the general rules of the KS&SSR. 21. We, hence, find that the applicants in the O.A. who were denied promotion only by reason of a penalty having been imposed in any of the relevant assessment years or the rigour of the penalty having spilled over to such assessment years, cannot be excluded if such penalty is coming within items (a) to (j) of Section 101(4) of the Police Act. As far as those persons whose promotions were interdicted for reason of any pending vigilance/disciplinary/judicial proceeding, the same is held to be proper, since till conclusion of proceedings it cannot be assumed that the penalty would be one as provided under Section 101(6). However, their assessment should have been kept in a sealed cover. At this point if a penalty has been imposed, again the above declaration would equally applicable to them and penalty imposed, if comes within items (a) to (j) of Section 101(4), it cannot stand in the way of their promotion. They ought to be promoted with effect from the consideration year on opening of the sealed cover. This declaration applies even if the sealed cover procedure is not resorted to. As far as those who are exonerated or proceedings dropped, obviously they would be entitled to the promotion. In the light of the above findings, all Original Petitions (KAT) except O.P(KAT) No.144 of 2018 are dismissed. O.P(KAT) No.144 of 2018 would stand dismissed on principle, but it is submitted that on revision of seniority the respondent cannot be considered for promotion in the year 2017, for reason of he being dropped from the zone of consideration. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.” 9. Rule 28(b)(i)(4) of KS & SSR Part II provides that the criterion for assessment of merit shall be confidential reports of the officers and which shall be for atleast the preceding 3 years etc. So, going by the claim for promotion for the select list year 2017, the preceding 3 years thereof would be relevant. In the instant case, the memo of charges has been issued on 2.2.2016 and the original penalty order at Anx.A-9 was issued on 1.12.2017 and the appellate order reducing the penalty was issued on 13.6.2018. So, going by the claim for promotion for the select list year 2017, the preceding 3 years thereof would be relevant. In the instant case, the memo of charges has been issued on 2.2.2016 and the original penalty order at Anx.A-9 was issued on 1.12.2017 and the appellate order reducing the penalty was issued on 13.6.2018. As held hereinabove, the effect of the appellate order is that the original penalty order will stand substituted and replaced as if the original penalty is the one of barring of one increment without cumulative effect. Whether the penalty is the one of barring of one increment with cumulative effect or without cumulative effect, both those penalties would come within the umbrella of Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act inasmuch as, the latter penalty of barring of increment without cumulative effect would come under Clause (i) of Sec.101(4), whereas the penalty of bar of increment with cumulative effect would come within Clause (j) of Sec.101(4). So, in the instant case, the protective umbrella afforded by the statute in terms of Sec.101(6) would be available for the instant penalty of barring of one increment without cumulative effect, and said penalty shall not normally be treated as a bar for promotion of a police officer. 10. While considering the objection raised by the petitioners herein as to whether the said beneficial provision contained in Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act would be applicable in the instant case inasmuch as the same has been deleted subsequently from the statute book from 8.1.2019, two aspects will have to be taken into account. Firstly, one should ascertain and verify as to the period during which the right to be considered for promotion has been accrued in favour of the claimant applicant. Secondly, it should be ascertained as to whether the penalty, which may otherwise come within the protective umbrella of Sec.101(6) of the Act, is falling within the relevant period going by the provisions contained in Rule 28(b)(i)(4) of KS & SSR, etc. Secondly, it should be ascertained as to whether the penalty, which may otherwise come within the protective umbrella of Sec.101(6) of the Act, is falling within the relevant period going by the provisions contained in Rule 28(b)(i)(4) of KS & SSR, etc. If the right to be considered for promotion has occurred in favour of the applicant before 8.1.2019, and the penalty order has also occurred during the relevant 3 year preceding period as per the select list year is concerned, and if the said period also falls before 8.1.2019, then the beneficial provision contained in Sec.101(6) would certainly be applicable to regulate the claim of an incumbent for promotion notwithstanding the fact that the said provision as per Sec.101(6) has been subsequently deleted from the statute book w.e.f 8.1.2019. In the instant case, for determining as to when the right to be considered for promotion has accrued in the case of an incumbent like the present applicant, one has to ascertain the vacancy period during which the claim has arisen. In the instant case, it is common ground for both sides that the right to be considered for promotion has accrued to the applicant for the select list 2017 and the vacancy period is for the select list 2017. So also, the penalty order in question which is bar of one increment without cumulative effect has occurred during the relevant 3 year preceding period as far as the select list 2017 is concerned. Since, both the criteria are satisfied, then notwithstanding the deletion of Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act from 8.1.2019 onwards, the said beneficial provision as it existed in the statute book prior to 8.1.2019 would come to the aid and rescue of the claimant like the present applicant. In other words, notwithstanding the imposition of penalty of bar of one increment without cumulative effect on the applicant for the relevant period in question, the beneficial provision contained in Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act which was in force till 7.1.2019 will come to the aid and rescue of the present applicant. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the applicant is entitled for the grant of promotion cannot be successfully impeached by the petitioners in the O.P. as far as the select list 2017 is concerned, and no interference is called for as regards the said conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. 11. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the applicant is entitled for the grant of promotion cannot be successfully impeached by the petitioners in the O.P. as far as the select list 2017 is concerned, and no interference is called for as regards the said conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. 11. The other objection raised by the petitioners in the O.P. is that the subsequent memo of charges issued against the applicant on 13.12.2019 based on the oral enquiry ordered on 6.10.2019, should bar the claim of the applicant for promotion notwithstanding his confidential records and notwithstanding the fact that his junior has been promoted, etc. As already mentioned hereinabove, the relevant period is 3 years prior to select list 2017, whereas the only memo of charges which was relevant for that period was the one issued on 2.2.2016, which ultimately culminated in penalty of bar of one increment without cumulative effect. The subsequent memo of charges issued on 13.12.2019 cannot be in any manner detrimentally affect the claim of the applicant for promotion to the select list year 2017 concerned. That may be relevant for the claim of the applicant for subsequent promotion for subsequent years subject to its outcome, etc and we need not comment about that. Suffice to hold that the said objection based on the subsequent memo of charges issued on 13.12.2019 cannot have any bearing or relevance as far as the claim of the applicant for promotion as per the select list year 2017 is concerned. In the instant case, it is common ground that going by the Annual Confidential Records of the applicant, he was found to be otherwise entitled and eligible for promotion as Inspector of Police, and his admitted juniors in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police have been promoted on the basis of recommendations of the same DPC for the select list year 2017. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the Tribunal's ultimate conclusion, that the Review DPC (Lower) should be convened to grant promotion to the applicant as Inspector of Police for the select list year 2017, cannot be successfully challenged by the petitioners in this O.P. However, we note that the verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-3 has been rendered on 10.8.2021 whereas the present O.P. has been filed before this Court only on 22.12.2021. In view of the delay in the matter, it is ordered that the petitioners in the O.P. will comply with the directions of the Tribunal rendered on para 13 of Ext.P-3 final verdict without any further delay, at any rate within an outer time limit of 2 months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 12. The Secretary to the office of the Advocate General will forward copies of this judgment to the petitioners in the O.P. for necessary immediate action and compliance. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition (KAT) will stand dismissed.