J MARIA ANTONYSAMY Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to promote the applicant as Head Constable with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential monetary and service benefits notwithstanding and without taking into account the charge memo formulated in C.No.191/PR/95 dated 6.10.95 under rule 3(b).) The petitioner has filed O.A.No,504 of 1998, seeking for a direction to the respondent to promote him as Head Constable. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No,33222 of 2006. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed a reply affidavit, dated 5.5.98 together with supporting documents.

(2.) THE petitioner had sought for promotion to the post of Head Constable with effect from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted without taking into account the pendency of the charge memo issued under Rule 3(b) of the TNPSS(D&A) Rules in PR No.191/95. THE case of the petitioner was that the charge memo came to be formulated after the date of promotion of his immediate junior, namely on 7.10.94. THE petitioner, therefore, claims promotion on that basis. It was also claimed that the petitioner's name was included in the list of promotees from Grade II Police Constable to Grade I Police Constable, by a memo dated 2.9.95 and his name was fixed above his junior Nagarajan. THE said Nagarajan was promoted as a Head Constable by a proceedings, dated 7.12.94. THE claim of the petitioner was that the charge memo itself was framed only on 6.10.95 and admittedly, his junior was promoted even before the date.

(3.) THE arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is hyper technical. It is the petitioner who went to the Tribunal and prevented the respondents from initiating any disciplinary action pursuant to the direction issued by the State Government. THE misconduct committed by the petitioner which was highlighted by the RDO, Madurai and accepted by the State Government cannot be dealt with leniently. After stalling the Government from taking any action, he cannot claim promotion, especially when he is facing disciplinary action on a grievous misconduct. THE reliance placed by the petitioner on the guidelines issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No,368, P&AR Department, dated 18.10.93 has no application to the case on hand.