S. PRABAKARAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner was directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category - I) through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and promoted as Superintendent of Police on 11.6.2006 and he was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), South Traffic District, Chennai. Thereafter, he was transferred from one station to another. When he was serving at Salem city as Deputy Commissioner of Police, the petitioner's name was considered for conferring ''I.P.S.'' by promotion based on his performance. Based on the Confidential report, the Selection Committee as per Regulation shall classify the eligible officers as ''Outstanding'', ''Very Good'', ''Good'' or ''unfit'' based on the overall relative assessment of their service records. Based on the list prepared in accordance with Regulations shall be forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission by the State Government to include their names in the Select list. As per the Regulation, Union Public Service Commission shall consider the list prepared by the Committee along with the documents received from the State Government as per the Regulation. Insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned, the petitioner became eligible for conferring ''I.P.S.'' for the year 2006. However, the petitioner's name was not included in the list of eligible officers for the year 2008 due to improper assessment of Annual Confidential report/Special Confidential report (service records) for the period from 11.6.2006 to 31.3.2007 and 1.4.2007 to 12.7.2007. The writ petitioner made representation to the first respondent to expung or modify the adverse remarks made against the writ petitioner. But the same was rejected on the ground that there is no such provision to modify or expung the remarks. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8047 of 2010 challenging the Government order in G.O.(D) No.428 issued by Home (SC) Department, dated 17.6.2013. By order, dated 19.12.2011, this Court set aside the order, dated 7.8.2009 and directed the first respondent to consider on merit and pass appropriate orders within six weeks thereafter.

(2.) The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court specifically directed the second respondent to communicate the remarks on the representation made by the petitioner. The aforesaid order has not been complied with by the second respondent. Since the second respondent, Director General of Police had not communicated the remarks to the first respondent, the first respondent passed the order without obtaining any remarks from the second respondent. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents may be directed to consider afresh, after obtaining remarks from the second respondent as directed by this Court.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the first respondent duly followed the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.11, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per-R) Department, dated 5.1.1984 and after obtaining the remarks from the Reporting Officers in both the Confidential Reports and Scrutinizing Officer for the period 11.6.2006 to 31.3.2007 and from 1.4.2007 to 12.7.2007 and after hearing the petitioner in person on 14.6.2013, passed the impugned order by rejecting the petitioner's representation. Therefore, according to the first respondent, only remarks of the Reporting/Scrutinizing Officers are required to be obtained on the representation made in connection with remarks recorded in Confidential Reports.