T. CHANDRAMOHAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition, challenging the order of the first respondent dated 22.1.2014 and to direct the respondents to promote him as Inspector of Police, category-I by including his name in the 'C' list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 2011-2012 without reference to the charge memo issued to him on 18.12.2013 in P.R.No.94 of 2013 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with his juniors.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is set out hereunder:-

(3.) It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is a directly recruited Sub Inspector of Police through a selection conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board. His next promotion is to the post of Inspector of Police. The petitioner has also attained sufficient seniority and merit for consideration of his claim for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, by including his name in the 'C' list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the panel year 2011-2012. The crucial date for preparation of the panel is 1.6.2011 and the date of consideration is 4.8.2012. Either on the crucial date or on the date of consideration, the petitioner was neither facing any charge memo nor any currency of punishment. But, his name was not included in the 'C' list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the panel year 2011-2012, whereas his juniors' names viz., A.Gnanasekaran and S.Naga Kavitha were included and they were promoted on the same day. The reason for non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the 'C' list is that a criminal case was pending against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2010 before the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet. But, in the said criminal case, judgment was delivered on 23.1.2013, acquitting the petitioner on merits. After acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 26.2.2013. Since the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, his claim for promotion as Inspector of Police has to be considered on par with his juniors, who were already promoted and are serving in the post. While situation stood thus, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, has issued a charge memo in P.R. No.94 of 2013 dated 17.12.2013 under Section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, containing a charge viz., the petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification from one Mahadevan for releasing his JCB and lorry detained in the police station, which was involved in a sand theft case. In view of the subsequent charge memo dated 17.12.2013 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the request of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police was turned down by the first respondent by the impugned order dated 22.1.2014. Hence, the present writ petition.