The petitioner has filed O.A.No.504 of 1998, seeking for a direction to the respondent to promote him as Head Constable. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.33222 of 2006. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed a reply affidavit, dated 5.5.98 together with supporting documents.
2.The petitioner had sought for promotion to the post of Head Constable with effect from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted without taking into account the pendency of the charge memo issued under Rule 3(b) of the TNPSS(D&A) Rules in PR No.191/95. The case of the petitioner was that the charge memo came to be formulated after the date of promotion of his immediate junior, namely on 7.10.94. The petitioner, therefore, claims promotion on that basis. It was also claimed that the petitioner's name was included in the list of promotees from Grade II Police Constable to Grade I Police Constable, by a memo dated 2.9.95 and his name was fixed above his junior Nagarajan. The said Nagarajan was promoted as a Head Constable by a proceedings, dated 7.12.94. The claim of the petitioner was that the charge memo itself was framed only on 6.10.95 and admittedly, his junior was promoted even before the date.
3.This hyper technical argument overlooks the background of his case. It is seen from the records that when the petitioner was working as Station Writer in the Alanganallur Police Station (Marudrai District), on 20.10.89, one Vellaiyan of Panvarpatti village was brought to the police station on the ground of a suspicion in his having stolen a Cow. He was detained in the police station without any record. The said Vellaiyan was subjected to torture with third degree methods and he had sustained 19 injuries on his person. This led to the said person committing suicide inside the lock-up. When they came to know about the death, the petitioner along with the other police man in the station, removed the body in order to screen evidence. An enquiry under PSO 145 was conducted by the RDO, Madurai. His report was forwarded to the State Government by the District Collector, Madurai. The Government, by G.O.Ms.No.1520, Public Law and Order Department, dated 25.09.90, accepted the report and ordered the suspension of the police men including the petitioner and the DGP was directed to take departmental action. It was based upon this order of the Government, a charge memo came to be framed after a period of 5 years.
4.The delay in framing the charge was explained by the respondents in the reply affidavit. In para 8 of the reply affidavit, it has been averred as follows:
"8. ... it is submitted that as stated by the applicant, Govt. in their order Ms.No.1520 Public (L&O) Dept. dated 25.9.90 had directed the Collector, Madurai to launch criminal prosecution against 8 Police officials including the applicant. Against this G.O., the applicant and 3 other Police personnel filed OA.3351 to 3354/90 in the TAT., Chennai and obtained order of stay to the extent that the 1st respondent (Govt.) not to pass any orders on the report of R.D.O., Madurai pending disposal of their applications. Hence no action was taken till the disposal of the OAs. on 10.1.95. However, correspondence was going on with the Collector and R.D.O. For the records and statements pertaining to this incident, to keep them ready for taking departmental action against the Police officials. Despite prolonged correspondence, a portion of records alone were received and the charge memos were framed with the available records and sent to the Dy. Inspr. Genl. Of Police, Madurai Range for approval on 22.9.1995. But, the same was received back for rectification of certain defects on 4.10.1995 in C.No.10412/A2/95. The defects were rectified and sent back to the Dy Inspr. Genl. of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai on 20.11.95. Again certain clarifications were sought for by the Dy. Inspr. Genl. of Police on 23.11.95 and the same were furnished on 5.1.96. In the meantime, Dy. Inspr. Genl. of Police, Madurai Range returned the charge memo with certain querries and instructed to redraft the charge memo and send them along with the entire records for perusal before approving the charge memo. Since a portion of the records were with Revenue Divisional Officers correspondence were going on with RDO in this connection. The records were kept by RDO in connection with the criminal action ordered to be taken against the Police officials. The records were received from R.D.O. only during 10/97 and the charge memo were approved and sent for further action by the Dy. Inspr. Genl. of Police, Madurai Range on 7.11.97."
5.The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is hyper technical. It is the petitioner who went to the Tribunal and prevented the respondents from initiating any disciplinary action pursuant to the direction issued by the State Government. The misconduct committed by the petitioner which was highlighted by the RDO, Madurai and accepted by the State Government cannot be dealt with leniently. After stalling the Government from taking any action, he cannot claim promotion, especially when he is facing disciplinary action on a grievous misconduct. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the guidelines issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.368, P&AR Department, dated 18.10.93 has no application to the case on hand.
6.In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
vvk To Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Madurai 1