M MURUGESAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has initially filed O. A. No: 1026 of 1996 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,chennai, for regularisation of his service in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police in terms of the order passed in O. A No: 1565 of 1995 dated 13. 11. 1995 and the same has been transferred to the file of this Honble Court and re-numbered as W. P. No: 32507 of 2005.

(2.) ORIGINALLY the writ petitioner was directly recruited as a Grade I Police Constable with effect from 15. 04. 1974. Subsequently, he was promoted as a head constable with effect from 15. 03. 1982 and he was promoted as a Sub Inspector of Police as out of turn promotion with effect from 26. 06. 1987 on a temporary basis. In the year 1989, though an order of reversion had been issued, by virtue of the interim order of stay granted by the Tribunal in O. A. No: 820 of 1989 dated 13. 06. 1989, which was subsequently continued by an order dated 31. 08. 1989, it was not given effect to. To say in other words, the petitioner and other similarly placed persons were continuing in the same post of Sub Inspector of Police by virtue of the interim stay granted by the Tribunal. Subsequently, a batch of cases viz. O. A. Nos: 1565 of 1995, etc. were disposed of by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 13. 11. 1995 and as per that order the Tribunal directed that, the head constables who have been acting as Sub Inspectors of Police for a period of six years and above as on the date of the impugned memorandum without any break or without any black mark or without any punishment whatsoever shall be regularized as Sub Inspector of Police and seniority shall be fixed according to the Rules. Subsequent to the orders of the Tribunal, the Director General of Police has issued a memorandum dated 26. 01. 1996 in Memo No: 554/ngb. I (2)/95. Paragraph 9 of that memorandum states that the police personnel who are eligible for screening by the Range Promotion Board but are currently under suspension or against whom disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3 (b) of the T. N. P. S. S. (D and A) Rules of 1955 are now pending, screening should be deferred and their cases should be considered after the disposal of such proceedings. In other words, the memorandum states that against the police personnel, who are eligible to appear before the Range Promotion Board for screening, if any disciplinary proceeding is pending their cases has to be deferred and their cases can be considered only after the disposal of such proceedings. Basing on this memorandum, inspite of the specific orders of the Tribunal, the petitioners service was not regularised in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 26. 06. 1987. Subsequently, only with effect from 13. 02. 1995, petitioners service was regularized in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police. Hence, he has filed the above Original Application seeking regularization of service with effect from 26. 06. 1987 based on the orders of the Tribunal dated 13. 11. 1995 in O. A. No: 1565 of 1995, etc. batch.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that even as per the memorandum issued by the Director General of Police dated 26. 01. 1996, the same has been issued giving effect to the orders of the Tribunal passed in O. A. NO: 1565 of 1995, etc. dated 13. 11. 1995. As per the orders of the Tribunal, the head constables who have been acting as Sub Inspector of Police for a period of six years and above, on the date of the impugned memorandum, without any black mark or without any punishment whatsoever their services should be regularised in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police and their seniority has to be fixed according to the Rules. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the date of the memorandum which was impugned in the batch of Original Application is dated 22. 02. 1995 and thus, based on the orders of the Tribunal, the service of the petitioner in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police has to be regularised with effect from the date of his original promotion namely with effect from 1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the condition laid down in the above said order of the Tribunal for regularisation is that as on 21. 02. 1995 the concerned person should have served for a period of six years as a Sub Inspector without any break or without any black mark or without any punishment whatsoever. But overlooking this criteria, the Director General of Police has issued a memorandum dated 26. 01. 1996 wherein one more condition has been added i. e. if any disciplinary proceeding was pending against the individual he is not eligible for screening by the Range Promotion Board. Since a charge memo dated 2. 7. 1992 was pending against the petitioner, his services were not regularized and he was given promotion only with effect from 13. 02. 1995. As such, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order/memorandum of the first respondent herein is contrary to the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and hence, the same is liable to be set aside and consequentially, petitioners service in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police has to be regularised taking into account his earlier promotion.