Madras High Court
Government Of Tamil Nadu vs S.V.Venkatakrishnan on 8 August, 2012
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.8.2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition No.14933 of 2010 Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Home (SC) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.S.V.Venkatakrishnan 2.Union of India, represented by its Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 3.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. ... Respondents * * * Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 1.4.2010 made in O.A.No.523/2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai/the third respondent herein and quash the same. * * * For petitioner : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General, assisted by Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy and Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthy, Spl.Govt.Pleaders For R.1 : Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, Sr.counsel for Mr.T.R.Rajaraman For R.2 : Mr.B.Manohar, CGSC * * * O R D E R
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
The first respondent is a 1974 batch IPS officer, who retired as Additional Director General of Police, and questioning his non-promotion to the post of Director General of Police, he initiated the present proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') and since Tribunal has allowed the plea of the applicant/first respondent herein, the State Government/Administration has come forward to file this writ petition.
2. From the materials placed on record, it is seen that as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India in letter No.45020/11/97-IPS-II, dated 15.1.1999, officers who have put in 30 yeas of service in IPS are eligible for consideration for promotion to the rank of Director General of Police, depending upon the availability of posts and as per the amendment issued in Government of India letter No.45020/11/97-IPS-II, MHA, New Delhi, dated 12.5.2000, promotion to the grade of Director General of Police (above Super time Scale post) may be made at any time during the year of their eligibility. In the teeth of the above position, the first respondent, while serving as the Additional Director General of Police, has submitted various representations, prior to his retirement (on 30.9.2007), to the Administration, seeking promotion to the cadre of Director General of Police. Since no reply emanated from the Administration, he filed O.A.No.747 of 2007 before the Tribunal. The said O.A.was allowed by the Tribunal on 23.7.2008, directing the Administration to consider the representations of the applicant/first respondent dated 25.6.2007, 25.8.2007 and 21.9.2007 and pass orders. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner/State Government has passed the order dated 30.9.2008 rejecting the claim of the applicant/first respondent in the following terms:
"... the post occupied by Thiru S.Ramani, IPS is an ex-cadre post. Further, no immediate or pressing requirement existed for filling up that post consequent on his retirement on 31.7.2007. The vacancy that arose in the only available cadre post on 31.8.2007 was also filled up by transfer and posting of an officer, who was already holding a non-cadre post in the DGP level...."
Aggrieved, the first respondent has filed O.A.No.523 of 2009 before the Tribunal. As stated earlier, since the Tribunal has allowed the said O.A., the Administration/State Government has come forward to file the present writ petition.
3. The case of the applicant/first respondent is that the 1974 batch IPS officers belonging to various states viz. Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, karnataka, Manipur, Gujarat Meghalaya, Jammu & Kashir and Kerala had already been promoted as Directors General of Police by June, 2007. He has further submitted that though only less than a year he was posted as Chief Vigilance Officer at Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, in a deliberate and systematic manner, he was transferred to Trichy as Chief Vigilance Officer of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd. in June 2006, which was not a post in the cadre of Additional Director General of Police and was required to report to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., who is in the rank of Superintending Engineer in the Transport Department, several ranks below the applicant.
4. Before the Tribunal, the Administration has contended that a disciplinary proceeding was pending against the applicant at the relevant point of time and that there was no vacancy in the cadre of Director General of Police as there were only four posts in that cadre and since there was no vacant post available, the applicant was not considered for promotion. It has also been contended by the State Government that at the relevant time when the post of Director General of Police, Training fell vacant due to retirement of Mr.S.Ramani on 31.7.2007, the State Government did not feel any necessity to fill up the said post and that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the State Government to convene Screening Committee and the case of the applicant cannot be considered now, since he has retired.
5. From the materials it is seen that on the ground that the applicant, while working as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range and as Reviewing Authority, has scrutinized the confidential report of one Mr.P.Sivanandi, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police for the period from 1.4.1993 to 15.7.1993 during which the said officer was on compulsory wait, a charge memo. was issued to the applicant on 26.3.2007. However, the enquiry officer, found the said charge proved, after enquiry and the said findings were also accepted by the State Government.
6. Though, during pleadings, the State Government has taken the objection that during the relevant point of consideration, disciplinary proceedings were pending against the applicant, during the course of arguments before the Tribunal, the learned counsel appearing for the State Government has submitted that charge memo. was never an issue to declare the applicant unfit for promotion since it was only on minor issue, thus giving up the plea of charge memo. standing in the way of the applicant for his promotion.
7. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has allowed the said O.A., directing the State Government to notionally promote the applicant to the post of Director General of Police, which fell vacant during the year 2007 prior to his retirement and a formal order to be passed to that effect. The State Government was also directed to refix the pay of the applicant, after granting him notional promotion, in the grade of Director General of Police and re-work his retiral benefits and pay him the amounts due to him. It was, however, made clear that there shall be no payment of backwages.
8. It is against this direction of the Tribunal that the State Government has come forward to file this writ petition.
9. Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General, appearing for the petitioner/State Government would argue that at the relevant point of time, the State Government was authorized to operate only two cadre posts and two ex-cadre posts in the rank of Director General of Police in the ratio of 1:1 and therefore, the total number of posts of Director General of Police that can be operated in the State is only four i.e. 2 cadre posts and 2 ex-cadre posts. He would further argue that no malafides can be attributed to the State Government for not conducting Screening Committee and the Tribunal has failed to consider these aspects.
10. On the part of the first respondent/applicant, the learned senior counsel, taking us through the voluminous materials placed on record, would argue that the applicant was purposely victimized and cornered to deny him his due and all the reasons were nothing but invented ones to justify the illegal action of the Administration, which has correctly been pin pointed by the CAT. Therefore, the learned senior counsel would pray to dismiss the writ petition.
11. As stated above, as the State Government has forsaken their objection with regard to pendency of the charge memo. against the applicant at the relevant point of time, even before the Tribunal, we need not have to go into that aspect of the matter. But, what we are required to examine is as to whether there is any vacancy available in the cadre of Director General of Police and if so, whether there is any truth in the contention of the applicant that he was victimized and wantonly denied his due by the Administration.
12. We have paid our anxious consideration to various points urged on either side in the light of the materials placed on record.
13. It is the strong case of the Administration that they can operate only two cadre posts and two ex-cadre posts in the rank of Director General of Police in the ratio of 1:1 and hence they could not accommodate the applicant. But, as could be seen from para No.6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition itself, the State Government has come out that in the year 2007, six posts of Director General of Police were in operation. They are:
(i)Director General of Police, Training
(ii)Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu
(iii)Director General of Police, Vigilance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai
(iv)Director General of Police, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation, Chennai
(v)Director General of Police, Chief Vigilance Officer, Metro Transort Corporation (Chennai) Limited, Chennai and
(vi)Director General of Police/Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai.
14. This itself besides pooh-poohing the contention of the very contention of the State Government, would also show that not four, but six posts in the cadre of Director General of Police were in operation during the relevant time. When a vacancy arose, due to the retirement of Mr.S.Ramani, IPS from the ex-cadre post of Director General of Police, Training on 31.7.2007, the State Government has not filled up the same, since the candidate available is the applicant, who was never the choice of the petitioner/State Government. That was the reason why the State Government has not taken any step towards filling up the vacancy arose due to retirement of Mr.S.Ramani, but, to escape the legal clutches, invented a reason that they have not felt any imminent necessity to fill the vacancy.
15. The applicant was a recipient of President's Medal for his distinguished services during the year 2001 and he fell in the zone of consideration, for being promoted to the cadre of Director General of Police after completion of his thirty years of service. The then Director General of Police Mr.D.Kukherjee, IPS, vide his proceedings in Rc.No.117140/GB1(1)/2007, dated 28.6.2007, addressed to the Secretary to Government, Home (SC) Department, Chennai, has requested the State Government to convene Screening Committee Meeting for drawal of panel of IPS officers in the grade of Additional Director General of Police (1974 batch) fit for promotion as Director General of Police. The names recommended by him include the name of the applicant Mr.S.V.Venkatakrishnan, IPS at Sl.No.1. In spite of these, the displeasure of the Administration against the applicant, for whatever reason it may be, seems to have played spoil sport to his career. Quire unfortunate that the displeasure of the State Government seems to have been to the magnitude of even ignoring the President Medal received by the applicant.
16. The factum of singling out the applicant and transferring him to Trichy as Chief Vigilance Officer of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd. in June 2006, which was not a post in the cadre of Additional Director General of Police, requiring him to report to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., who is in the rank of Superintending Engineer in the Transport Department and slapping a charge memo. on him in the year 2007, for an alleged dereliction committed in the year 1993 i.e. after a lapse of 13 years (which was not proved during enquiry proceedings) and non-filling up of the vacancy of Mr.S.Ramani, IPS (fell vacant on 31.7.2007) on the ground that 'there is no pressing need to fill the same' and filling up of the vacancy that fell vacant on 31.8.2007 after the retirement of Mr.D.Mukherjee, IPS - all drive us to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner is biased towards the applicant and only to humiliate him, he was victimized, singled out and ultimately denied him his due.
17. Our repeated questioning to the learned Advocate General as to why the available vacancy was not filled up by conducting Screening Committee, even though there was a recommendation by the Director General of Police in the year 2007, evinced only the reply that the State Government did not find any immediate imminent necessity to fill the vacancy, which did not convince us for the simple reason that though only less than a year he was posted as Chief Vigilance Officer at Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, in a deliberate and systematic manner, he was transferred to Trichy as Chief Vigilance Officer of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd. in June 2006, which was not a post in the cadre of Additional Director General of Police and was required to report to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., who is in the rank of Superintending Engineer in the Transport Department, who is several ranks below the applicant. In fact, he was the only Officer in that cadre shunted out of Chennai.
The Tribunal, in our considered view, has correctly analysed the entire gamut of the case in its proper perspective and has arrived at the conclusion of allowing the prayer of the applicant. Therefore, we do not find any need or necessity to cause our interference into the well reasoned and justified order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The petitioner/State Government and the second respondent/Government of India are directed to implement the order of the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No (E.D.R., J.) (M.V., J.)
Rao 8.8.2012
To
1.Union of India,
represented by its Secretary to the Government,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
2.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai.
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
AND
M.VENUGOPAL, J.
(Rao)
Pre-delivery
Order in W.P.No.14933 of 2010
8.8.2012