DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Vs. V RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are filed by the Government against the orders of the learned single Judges allowing the writ petitions directing the Government to give promotion to the respondents, who were the writ petitioners, as they suffered only minor punishments, by following a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subramaninan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2008) 5 MLJ 350.

(2.) MR. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the said judgment of the Division Bench was rendered without noticing the Government Order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 368, Personnel and Reforms (S) Department dated 18.10.1993 and the subsequent clarification issued by the Government, wherein it is stated that pendency of a charge under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in respect of police personnel alone is not a bar and if there is punishment, viz. , withholding of increment, censure etc. , which are treated as minor punishments, the same should be a bar during the currency of the punishments or for certain period and within the check period of five years, the same will have an effect on promotion/ inclusion of name in the panel.

(3.) THE learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that in all the above said cases, currency of punishment was treated as a bar and promotion denied during the relevant period was found to be proper and all the above decisions as well at the Government Order, cited supra, were not considered by the Division Bench in the case of Subramaninan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (supra), and therefore, these writ appeals are to be referred to the Full Bench, since some of the learned Judges of this Court have not interfered in the matter of non-consideration of promotion and some of the learned judges have allowed the writ petitions filed by the persons, who have been denied promotion, following the judgment of the Division Bench Subramaninan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (supra),. THE learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline, and therefore, his request for reference to the Full Bench is fully justified.