Madras High Court
Perumalsamy vs The Secretary To Government on 13 September, 2013
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.09.2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P. No.9351 of 2007
(O.A.No.4733/2002)
Perumalsamy .. Petitioner
..vs..
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Chennai-4. .. Respondents
Prayer :Writ petition having been transferred from the file of Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4733 of 2002 to the file of this Court to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police by appointment by transfer from 1997 onwards without prejudice to the charges pending against him.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as the Deputy Superintendent of Police by appointment by transfer from 1997 onwards without prejudice to the charges pending against him.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he was enlisted as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1973 and became Inspector of Police in the year 1984. According to his seniority, he ought to have been promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police by appointment by transfer as early as in the year 1997 itself. Three charge memos have been issued to the petitioner in P.R.No.2/1999 and the petitioner had challenged the same before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and the application was dismissed. Another charge memo for desertion was issued and that also was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The said application also came to be dismissed. One more charge of punishment of stoppage of increment for three years was awarded. During the course of pendency of those charges, the petitioner's juniors were promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Yet another charge memo was also issued to the petitioner under Rule 3(b) and a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years was ordered. Thus, the petitioner's contention is that pendency of those charges cannot be a bar for considering him for promotion.
3.The respondents filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is a selection post and the same shall be made by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer from Inspectors of Police of the Tamilnadu police Service. The Government promotes officers on merit after considering various factors including the fact that whether they are undergoing currency of punishments or facing charges as per rule. The petitioner's case was not considered for including in the panel for promotion for the year 1998-99 in view of the grave charges pending against him. His name was also not included in the subsequent panel 1999-2000 to 2000-2001 in view of the reasons that the charges were pending against him. Subsequently, he was overaged for the panel year 2002-2003. As the charges were grave in nature and therefore, he was dealt with under Rule 3(b). All the charges were proved and disposed of. Major punishment was awarded to the petitioner and even on the date of filing the application, he was facing a grave charge. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner to consider him to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was not considered.
4.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side.
5.At the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner was 56 years old. He seeks a direction to the respondents to promote him as Deputy Superintendent of Police by appointment by transfer. It is seen that the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is a selection post and the same shall be made by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer from Inspector of Police and such promotion has to be made not simply by considering the seniority alone but also considering the merit and various factors including the fact whether the concerned person was undergoing currency of punishment or facing the charges.
6.Considering all these facts and considering the admitted position that the petitioner was facing several charges at the relevant point of time, his name was not included in the panel for promotion. Therefore, I find that there is no justification on the part of the petitioner in seeking the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. The respondents have in detail explained the reasons for not considering the petitioner for promotion. I am fully convinced with the reasons stated by the respondents for not considering the petitioner for promotion and I find no merits in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
vri To
1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai-9.
2.The Director General of Police, Chennai 4