SECRETARY Vs. T K DAMODHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the writ petitioners as well as Mr. K. Venkataramani, Counsel, who took notice for the contesting first respondent herein.

(2.) What is challenged herein is the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 31.1.2003 in O.A.Nos.5153 of 2001 and 4687 of 2002, in and by which the Tribunal has held that the punishment of censure suffered by the petitioner will have the effect of only delaying the first respondent's promotion as Deputy Superintendent Police for one year, i.e. from 1994-95 to 1995-96 and that his seniority as Deputy Superintendent of Police has to be fixed with reference to 1995-96. The Tribunal has further directed that whenever the promotion to the next post of Additional Superintendent of Police fell due, he shall be considered if he was otherwise qualified. There was a disciplinary action pending against the first respondent in D.E.No.32/89. In the said circumstances, his inclusion in the list of 1994-95 for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was deferred. When the petitioner came forward with OA in OA No.1975 of 1995 before the Tribunal praying for his inclusion in the list of 1994-95 by ignoring the departmental proceedings, the said application came to be allowed and a direction was given to the department to include the first respondent's name in the panel for 1994-95 notwithstanding the pendency of D.E.No.32/89 and subject to the result of the said disciplinary proceedings. Pursuant to the said order, the first respondent was promoted on 2.1.1997 and he has also joined duty as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Subsequently, D.E.No.32/89 came to be concluded and final orders were passed on 21.7.1998, in which the punishment of censure came to be imposed on the first respondent. According to the first respondent, the effect of imposition of the said punishment of censure would only result in denial of promotion for a period of one year. By its order, which was impugned before the Tribunal, namely, the one dated 17.5.2001 in G.O.Ms.No.502, the petitioner herein had held as under:

(3.) Therefore, for denying the first respondent's promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category (1) for the year 1994-95, the petitioners herein solely relied upon the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.368, P & A.R (Per.S) Dept., dated 18.10.1993. Therefore, the question that remains to be considered is as to whether while applying the instructions contained in the said G.O.Ms.No.368, dated 18.10.1993, the first respondent could be denied his promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police till the punishment of censure came to be passed in the year 1998 and even subsequent thereafter. For analysing the said purpose, when we looked into the contents of G.O.Ms.No.368, dated 18.10.1993 we find that in paragraph 2(c) it has been stated as under: