T SIVAPERUMAL Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O.A.No.7839 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. THE petitioner was working as a Grade I Police Constable. By the impugned order, the petitioner was sought to be reverted from the post of Grade I Police Constable to Grade II Police Constable on the ground that a charge memo under rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was pending against the petitioner in PR.No.218 of 1999. THE Chief office vide its memo dated 28.09.1999 had clarified that his upgradation will be considered only after the exoneration from the charges and also fulfilling the other conditions of upgradation.

(2.) THE Tribunal ordered notice of motion on 30.10.2000 and granted an interim stay. Subsequently, on 16.11.2000, the interim order came to be extended without specifying any time limit. THE said interim order continues till date. No attempt was made by the respondent to vacate the interim order.

(3.) BOTH in the impugned order and in the reply affidavit, the respondent only relied upon the charge memo given under Rule 3(b) and not any other proceedings which are pending earlier to the date of the charge memo, i.e. 2.11.1999. Therefore, on the date when upgradation list was issued on 7.10.1999, technically there was nothing pending against the petitioner except his suspension pending enquiry into grave charges. The suspension only enables the department to keep the Government servant out of work spot. Unless the charge memo is issued, it cannot be said that disciplinary proceedings is pending. In such case, if promotion is given it is not as if the employer has got no remedy, because depending upon the outcome of the disciplinary action, it can always pass appropriate penalty against the Government servant. The questions raised is no longer res integra.