The petitioner joined the Police service as Grade-II Police Constable on 10.11.1975. He was promoted as Grade-1 Police Constable on 1.9.1994, by an order dated 28.5.1998 of the 2nd respondent. He was upgraded as Head Constable from 13.1.1998.
2. While so, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.03.2000, modifying the earlier order dated 28.5.1998, by revising the date of upgradation of Head Constable from 13.01.1998 to 01.09.1999. The reason for modifying the earlier order was that the petitioner did not complete five years of service as Grade - I Police Constable, as he was upgraded as Head Constable from 13.01.1998. On completion of five years of service, he was upgraded as Head Constable with effect from 01.09.1999. In the same order, a direction was also issued for recovery of the excess amount paid by way of salary from 13.01.1998 to 31.08.1999 for the upgraded post of Head Constable.
3. Consequential order dated 29.11.2001 was passed by the third respondent for recovery of the amount paid towards the excess salary between 13.01.1998 to 31.08.1999.
4. The petitioner filed an original application in O.A.No.616 of 2002, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (herein after referred to as the Tribunal) to quash both the orders dated 22.03.2000 and 29.11.2001 of the third respondent.
5. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.9512 of 2007.
6. Heard the submissions made by Mr.G.Bala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order dated 22.03.2000 was passed in contravention of the order in R.C.No.60229/NGB.III(2)/97 dated 06.02.1998 of the Director General of Police, the first respondent. It is made clear in the said proceeding dated 06.02.1998 that for those police Constables, who were recruited prior to 31.12.1975, it is not necessary that they should serve for five years as Grade-I Police Constable for upgradation as Head Constable.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that later, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1247, Home (Police V) Department, dated 28.10.2004, prescribing ten years of service for Grade - II Police Constable for upgradation as Grade I Police Constable and five years of service for Grade I Police Constable to become Head Constable. The said Government Order streamlines the entire scheme of upgradation of police Constables from Grade II to Grade I Police Constables and Grade I Police Constables to Head Constables. If the aforesaid order dated 06.02.1998 of the first respondent and G.O.Ms.No.1247, are taken into account, the impugned order dated 22.03.2000 is illegal.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that when the petitioner was initially upgraded by an order dated 28.05.1998 as Head Constable from 13.01.1998, it was done by the Department itself and it was not done on misrepresentation of the petitioner. In these circumstances, any amount paid pursuant to the said order could not be recovered.
10. Taking into account the above submissions, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 22.03.2000 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.03.2000 is liable to be set aside and the consequential order dated 29.11.2001 is also liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, both the orders dated 22.03.2000 and 29.11.2001 passed by the third respondent are set aside.
12. The matter is remanded back to the third respondent to consider the same afresh, taking into account the proceedings of the first respondent in R.C.No.60229/NGB.III(2)/97 dated 06.02.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.1247, Home (Police V) Department, dated 28.10.2004 and also the contention of the petitioner that in any event, the recovery would not arise, since the earlier order upgrading him as Head Constable was not due to any misrepresentation made by the petitioner.
13. The third respondent is directed to complete the said exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
GV To
1) The Director General of Police, Chennai 600 004.
2) The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tiruchirapalli 620 001.
3) The Superintendent of Police, Security Branch C.I.D., Chennai