ANTHONY HARRY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY, the petitioner had filed O. A. No. 736/2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for the issue of a direction directing the respondents to include his name in the panel prepared for appointment by way of recruitment by transfer to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 2000-2001 issued in G. O. Ms. No. 1026 Home (Police 2 )Department dated 15. 10. 2001 and the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W. P. No. 37909/2005.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was promoted as an Inspector of Police in the year 1988. As per his seniority in the cadre of Inspector, his name should have been included in the panel prepared for the year 2000-2001 for appointment by recruitment by transfer to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner possessed all the qualifications, his name was overlooked and no reason has been assigned in the above said G. O. for non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the said panel. Apart from this, according to the learned counsel, a charge memo was issued in P. R. No. 119/2000 under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D anda) Rules, 1955 and for the said allegation, a criminal case was also registered as against the petitioner in Crime No. 9/2000, but in the said criminal case, by order dated 20. 5. 2005, the petitioner was acquitted and as far as the departmental proceedings are concerned, the Tribunal has quashed the allegations levelled against the petitioner on two counts out of four and in respect of the other two allegations, by order dated 21. 2. 2006, punishment of "reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year, which shall operate his future increment" was imposed. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner was fully qualified, his name was also included in the panel prepared for promotion by recruitment by transfer by the Superintendent of Police in his proceedings dated 16. 11. 2001. Further, according to the learned counsel, though the petitioner was placed under suspension, on the basis of the above said criminal case, the said order of suspension was stayed by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 1082/2000. Besides, even the charge memo issued in P. R. No. 119/2000 dated 28. 7. 2000 was also stayed by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 7114/2000 by order dated 3. 12. 2001. As such, according to the learned counsel, in view of the interim orders granted by the Tribunal, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner's name should have been included in the panel prepared for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 2000-2001. According to the learned counsel, though disciplinary proceedings were initiated as early as 2000, final orders were passed only in the year 2006, thereby depriving the petitioner the chances of promotion. The learned counsel further contended that since the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and even in the departmental proceedings, only reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect was imposed, the non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the above said panel is prima facie illegal.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that based on the recommendation rolls, the State Promotion Board considered the case of the petitioner but recommended to defer his name for inclusion in the panel for 2000-2001 in view of the pending P. R. In 119/2000 under Rule 3 (b) of the said Rules. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, even in the criminal case also, the petitioner was not acquitted on merits, but only on the ground that the sanction obtained was not in proper form. Further, the learned counsel contended that in the departmental proceedings as well, the punishment imposed is "reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year, which shall operate his future increment", which is a major punishment since the wording used is "which shall operate his future increment". According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, at the relevant point of time, charges framed under Rule 3 (b) of the Rules were pending against the petitioner and as per the guidelines issued in G. O. Ms. No. 368 P and AR Department dated 18. 10. 1993, the petitioner's name cannot be considered. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that when the petitioner has not been exonerated of the charges levelled against him, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.