DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CITY POLICE OFFICE, EGMORE, CHENNAI Vs. K R ANBU, S/O A M RAMALINGAM MUDALIAR, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINDRADRIPET POLICE STATION, CHENNAI AND REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 9.12.97 passed in O.A.No. 5002/97 directing the first petitioner to consider the case of the first respondent for inclusion in the panel of Sub-Inspectors of Police for the year 1995-96 for promotion as Inspector of Police without reference to and without taking into consideration the P.R.No.19/94 dated 8.4.96 and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately with all attendant benefits from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. It is also observed that promotion so made shall however be subject to review after final orders are passed in the proceeding P.R.No.19/94.

(2.) According to the first respondent, since the incident with reference to which the charge memo came to be issued in April 1994 related to the year 1988, in view of the inordinate delay in the initiation of the disciplinary action, applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V. CHAMAN LAL GOYAL), the first respondent's claim for inclusion in the panel of promotion to the post of Inspector of Police ought to have been made by the petitioners. The said submission of the first respondent weighed with the Tribunal which resulted in the passing of the order impugned in the writ petition.

(3.) In this context, it is relevant to refer to G.O.Ms.No. 368 dated 18.10.93 which specifically provides that in cases where specific charges have been framed or charge sheet has been filed in criminal cases, promotions/appointments of such persons should be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. When reference to the said G.O. is made to the facts of the case on hand, it will have to be held that as on the date when the panel for the year 1995-96 for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police was prepared, there was a charge pending against the petitioner in proceeding No. 19/94. In such circumstances, G.O.Ms.No.368 gets squarely attracted and in which event, until the said proceedings are concluded there was no scope for including the name of the first respondent in the panel for 1995-96.