V. Ramakrishnan vs The State of Tamil Nadu

D. Hari Paranthaman, J.—The Petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 14.12.1971. He was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1992. He was further promoted as Head Constable in the year 1996. As per Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 937, Home (Police.3) Department, dated 21.07.1998, the Petitioner is eligible for up-gradation to the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police on completion of 10 years of service in the category of Head Constable and in total 25 years of service as Constable. Accordingly, the Petitioner was eligible for up-gradation to the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2007. However, the Petitioner was not considered by the Respondents on the ground that he suffered with minor punishments. The details of the punishments are as follows:

(i)"Postponement of increment for three years and the period of postponement shall operate to postpone his future increment" in PR. No. 49/2004 u/r 3(b) of TNPSS (D and A) Rules, 1955, dated 08.07.2005.

(ii)"Postponement of increment for two years and the period of postponement shall operate to postpone his future increment" in PR. No. 159/2005 u/r 3(b) of TNPSS (D and A) Rules, 1955, dated 27.03.2006.

(iii)"Postponement of increment for one year which shall not operate to postpone his future increments" in PR. No. 100/2006 u/r 3(b), dated 15.02.2007.

(iv)"Reduction of pay by one stage for one year and the period of reduction shall not operate to postpone his future increments in PR. No. 07/u/r 3(b), dated 16.11.2007.

Hence, the Petitioner approached this Court claiming up-gradation on the ground that the minor punishment could not be a bar for promotion. The learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 911 of 2010, dated 04.03.2010, allowed the writ petition based on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Subramanian v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Chennai and Ors. reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 350.

Aggreived by the said order, an Appeal was preferred by the Respondents and the same was dismissed on 23.03.2011. However, the third Respondent has passed the impugned order stating that the Petitioner is not entitled for up-gradation to the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police, in view of the Government Order passed in G.O. Ms. 368, P & AR Department, dated 18.10.1993, though the minor punishment is not in currency. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 26.05.2011 passed by the third Respondent and direct the Respondents to upgrade the Petitioner to the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police.

Heard the submissions made by Mr. A.R. Suresh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in The Deputy Inspector General of Police and The Director General of Police Vs. V. Rani, , wherein it is held as follows:

Therefore, after analysis of the entire law on the subject, we answer the reference as follows:

(1) During the period of currency of minor punishment, an employee cannot claim as a matter of right to be promoted to the next category merely on the basis that he is otherwise fit for promotion and to that extent, the finding of the Division Bench in Subramanian v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Chennai and Ors. 2008 (5) MLJ 350, stands overruled. It is needless to state that after the currency of punishment period, the Government Servant is entitled to be considered for promotion to the next post, if otherwise eligible.

(2) If any benefit has been conferred on the party to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Subramanian v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Chennai and Ors. 2008 (5) MLJ 350, the same shall not be affected by the judgment of this Bench since there is a factual finding in that case that there was a technical lapse committed by the delinquent and no financial loss caused.

In view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court, the Petitioner cannot claim any relief based on the order dated 04.03.2010 in W.P. No. 911 of 2010. However, the Petitioner is entitled to get relief under Paragraph 28(1) of the Full Bench Judgment. As per the impugned order, there is no punishment operating against the Petitioner after 14.07.2008. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled to be considered for up-gradation as Special Sub-Inspector of Police, after 14.07.2008.

In these circumstances, I am inclined to quash the impugned order dated 26.05.2011 and a direction is issued to the third Respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner for up-gradation as Special Sub-Inspector of Police in the light of Paragraph 28(1) of the Full Bench judgment of this Court. The third Respondent is also directed to pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

However, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the event of the Petitioner being up-graded as Special Sub-Inspector of Police, it is on notional basis and accordingly to issue revised order on terminal benefits. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.