At the time of filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal, the petitioner was aged 48 years and was serving as Head Constable, Traffic Investigation Wing, Salem City, Salem.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered Police Department as Grade-II Police Constable, in Salem Armed Reserve on 14.12.73. Gradually, he was promoted to the post of Head constable on 5.2.93. He had received 146 rewards and did not come to any adverse notice till the date of filing of the Original Application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.
3. The Director General of Police, Chennai, the first respondent issued a memorandum in R.C.No.154645/NGBIV/3/98, dated 29.9.98, to convene Range Promotion Boards in various ranges in Tamilnadu for preparation of Special list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police for the year 1998. The petitioner has completed 4 years of service and was fully qualified to be considered for promotion. However, at that point of time, he has facing a disciplinary proceedings in P.R.No.1/97 on the file of the Superintendent of Police, Salem under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service Rules.
4. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges were not proved. Citing the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, he was not allowed to participate in the Range Promotion Board. The petitioner came to know that two of his colleagues, Mr.Pandurangan, H.C.1581 and Mr.Subramnanian H.C.2461, who were facing disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, appeared in the Range Promotion Board and subsequently the said Mr.Subramanian was selected and included in the list. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed Original Application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras, for the relief as stated supra, which has been subsequently transferred and renumbered as the present Writ Petition.
5. In support of the relief sought for in the Writ Petition, Mr.K.Venkatramani, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no prohibition has been imposed in the memorandum of the Director General of Police, Chennai, dated 29.9.98, restricting the rights of the Head Constables who were facing disciplinary proceedings from participating in the Range Promotion Board. In the absence of any restriction, the Salem Range promotion Board ought to have allowed the petitioner, to participate in the Range Promotion Board, as was done in the case of the other two Police Head Constables in Vellore Range. He further submitted that failure to apply the same yardstick amounts to violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is his further contention that if the petitioner had been allowed to participate in the Range Promotion Board, he would have come out successful in the selection and promoted as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1998 itself.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, in P.R.No.1/97 on the file of the Superintendent of Police, Salem ended in a punishment of reduction of time scale. But the same was ultimately held as incorrect. In such an event, the respondents ought to have promoted the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police from the date on which his immediate junior came to be promoted, without reference to participation of the Range Promotion Board.
7. Based on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, the second respondent, Mr.Gopinathan, Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that on 8.8.98, the Director General of Police, in his memorandum in C.No.154645/NGB IV(3)/98 had directed all Range Promotion/City Promotion Board for preparation of 'C' lists of Head Constables (Local) fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police (Local) for the year 1998 and further directed that promotion tests consisting of Written Test, Drill Test, Viva Voce were to be conducted for selection. However, on 9.10.98, Director General of Police also issued another memorandum and sent a Radio message instructing all Range DIG's of Police and Commissioner of Police that service rules and government orders issued from time to time regarding consideration of punishments and pendency of enquiries etc. for promotion should be scrupulously followed.
8. Placing reliance on the guidelines issued by the government in G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.93, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that promotions were to be considered on the basis of the performance of the officers coming under the zone of consideration and in cases, where specific charges have been framed or charge sheet is filed in criminal cases, promotion and appointment of such persons can be deferred till disciplinary proceedings are concluded.
9. As the petitioner was facing a disciplinary proceedings, he was not permitted to participate in the Range Promotion Board. On the aspect of the other two Head Constables permitted to apepar in the Range Promotion Board, he submitted that there cannot be any equality, in exercise of discretion, contrary to the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No. 368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.93 and the subsequent orders issued from time to time. He further submitted that the petitioner was facing a charge under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service Rules and was placed under suspension on 29.11.96 for his gross negligence in duty in having failed to collect and furnish information to the Inspector of Police, Kondalampatti Circle, about the selling of illicit arrack by one Smt.Nachayee, which resulted in the death of two persons, after consuming illicit arrack sold by her on 28.11.96. Therefore, he submitted that there is no discrimination and violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
11. As per Clause 10 of the instructions of the Director General of Police, Chennai, dated 29.9.1998, the Commissioner of Police and Range Deputy Inspectors General of Police were directed to take care in completing the process by strictly following the rules, government orders and the verdicts of the Courts. Even though the above memorandum issued by the Director General of Police, Chennai, does not specify that G.O.Ms.No. 368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.93 and other orders setting out the guidelines for preparation of a panel have to be followed that he does not mean that all the persons who have facing disciplinary proceedings, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, were to be permitted to participate in the Range Promotion Board. It could be seen from the counter affidavit that subsequently, the Director General of Police, Madras has issued further instructions in his memorandum C.No.154645/NGB IV(3)/98, dated 9.10.98 and also sent a wireless message stating that service rules and government orders issued from time to time regarding the consideration of punishments and pendency of enquiries for promotion should be scrupulously followed in the matter of selection. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel to the contra cannot be countenanced.
12. On perusal of the orders dated 10.10.1998 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore, permitting the two Head constables to appear in the Range Promotion Board, this Court is of the considered view that merely because two Head Constables in the said region, facing disciplinary proceedings, were permitted to participate in the Range Promotion Board in one Range, that cannot be cited as a precedent that all the Range Promotion Boards constituted for the purpose of selection to the post of Sub Inspectors of Police, should adopt the same procedure in the matter of selection, ignoring the guidelines. G.O.Ms.No. 368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.93, specifically stated that in cases, where specific charges have framed and charge sheet is filed in criminal cases, promotion and appointment of such persons shall be deferred till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded. It is not open to the petitioner to claim that he has either a statutory or legal right to participate in the Range promotion Board, notwithstanding the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated for the purpose of imposing a major penalty under rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service.
13. As regards the conduct of the petitioner, the counter affidavit shows that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 29.11.96 for his gross negligence in duty and having failed to collect and furnish information to the Inspector General of Police, Kondalampatti Circle about the selling of illicit arrack by one Smt.Nachayee, which resulted into the death of two persons after consuming illicit arrack sold by her on 28.11.96. The said conduct even warrants a major penalty. Having regard to the guidelines issued by the government in the matter of consideration for promotion, denial of the petitioner to participate in the Range Promotion Board for the year 1998 cannot be said as arbitrary or irrational.
14. Having regard to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner was subsequently exonerated of the charges initiated in P.R.No.1/97 on the file of the Superintendent of Police, Salem District, it is open to the petitioner to approach the departmental authorities for promotion under the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No. 368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.93. It is open to the petitioner to make a representation if he so advised and on receipt of the representation, the respondents are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
15. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
aes To
1. The Director General of Police, Chennai-4.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem-7.
3. The Chairman, City Promotion Board, Salem City and Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime & Traffic, Salem City