LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Minor punishment not a bar for promotion

Isaac Gabriel ,
  12 April 2011       Share Bookmark

Court :
Madras HC madurai bench
Brief :

Citation :
W.P.(MD)No.5998 of 2010 and W.P.(MD)No.5999 of 2010

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

 

DATED: 28/04/2010

 

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI

 

W.P.(MD)No.5998 of 2010

and

W.P.(MD)No.5999 of 2010

and

M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 1 of 2010

 

 

N.Ponnulingam                                                                 ... Petitioner in

                                                                                                    W.P.No.5998/2010

 

S.Ponniah                                                                    ... Petitioner in

                                                                                                    W.P.No.5999/2010

                                               

Vs

 

1.The Director General of Police,

  Tamil Nadu,

  Chennai - 4.

 

2.The Commissioner of Police,

  Tirunelveli City,

  Tirunelveli District.                                                         ... Respondents

 

 

PRAYER

 

Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying to issue a Writ of   Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the

petitioners for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from January

2008 and 2010 respectively.

 

!For Petitioner  ... Mr.S.Ramasamy

^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Manoharan, G.A.

 

 

:COMMON ORDER

 

************

                                Mr.R.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf

of the respondents.  By consent, the main writ petitions itself are taken up for

final disposal.

 

                                2. The case of the petitioners is that they are appointed as Police

Constables in the year 1975 and 1977 respectively, by direct recruitment in the

Tamil Nadu Police Department and they were promoted as Grade-I Police Constable

in the year 1993 and 1995 respectively and subsequently as Head Constable in the

year 1998 and 1999 respectively.  It is stated that the petitioners have

completed 35 years and 33 years of service in the police department and

according to them, they are eligible for consideration for promotion to the post

of Special Sub Inspectors of Police as per G.O.Ms.No.15 Home (Pol.V) Department

dated 07.01.2010, which contemplates a scheme of upgradation as a Special Sub-

Inspectors of Police in respect of a person, who is having experience of 25

years of service and 10 years of service as Head Constable in the police

department, by fixing 1st June of every year as crucial date.  The relevant

portion of the said Government Order is as follows:

                                "The Director General of Police has now stated that the Government,

in their order in G.O.Ms.No.844, Home (Police V) Department, dated 03.06.97 have

commenced the upgraded scheme in a time bound manner in respect of Police

Personnel and those Grade-II Police Constables who had completed 10 years of

service, were ordered to be upgraded as Grade-I Police Constables and Grade-I

Police Constables who had completed 5 years of service to be upgraded as Head

Constables and similarly in G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Police 3) Department, dated

21.07.1998, the Government have introduced the scheme of upgradation as Special

Sub-Inspectors of Police, for which Police Personnel appointed as Grade-II

Police Constable should have completed 25 years of service, out of which for 10

years they should have served as Head Constable, and 1st June of every year was

fixed as crucial date."

 

                                3. It is the further case of the petitioners that as per the said

Government Order, they are eligible for the upgradation under the Scheme as

Special Sub-Inspectors of Police and the petitioners have made representations

dated 15.03.2010 and 08.02.2010 respectively, for conferment to the benefit of

the said Government Order.

 

                                4. It is an admitted case that there was a departmental proceedings

initiated against the petitioners, which resulted in the order of punishment

dated 15.02.2008, by which, the petitioner have been inflicted punishment of

stoppage of increment for a period of two years, which shall not operate to

postpone their future increments and also on the pensionary benefits upon the

delinquents.

 

                                5. It is also an admitted case that as on the crucial date, the

currency of the said punishment is ineffect.  Under similar circumstances, the

Division Bench of this Court in Subramanian Vs. Government of Tamilnadu

represents by its Secretary, Chennai and others reported in 2008(5) MLJ 350,

while refusing to interfere with the punishment of stoppage of increment of 2

years with cumulative effect held that the punishment of stoppage of increment

for two years with cumulative effect can only be termed as minor punishment.  On

that basis, the petitioners could not be denied promotion and such punishment

would not stand in the way of giving promotion while considering their past

service records.  If they are otherwise eligible, taking note of the fact that

by the time, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation to consider

their promotion on supernumerary basis for the purpose of conferment of the

retirement benefits.  The portion of the said judgment is as follows:

 

                                "The petitioner was admittedly imposed punishment of stoppage of

increment for two years without cumulative effect, as per G.O.(2D) No.49, dated

16.10.2000.  As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it could be

construed only as a minor punishment and solely based on the same, he could be

denied further promotion.  It is seen further that stoppage of increment was

given effect by order, dated 16.10.2000 for two years.  The respondents have not

denied that the petitioner had to attain superannuation only on 30.04.2003.  In

such circumstances, he was eligible to be considered for promotion along with

his junior, prior to the date of superannuation.  If he is otherwise fir for

promotion along with his juniors, he would be eligible for national promotion

and based on which, eligible for corresponding retirement benefits."

 

                                6. Applying the ratio laid down by the Division Bench to the facts

and circumstances of the present cases, wherein, the punishment suffered and

which is in currency by the petitioners is stoppage of two increments without

cumulative effect and taking note of the fact that as per the G.O.Ms.No.15 Home

(Pol.V) Department dated 07.01.2010, the petitioners are eligible to be

considered for the upgradation to the next post of Special Sub-Inspectors of

Police under the scheme of the Government enumerated above.

 

                                7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are  disposed of with a

direction against the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the

petitioners' dated 15.03.2010 and 08.02.2010 and to pass appropriate orders

regarding the conferment of the upgradation of the petitioners as Special Sub-

 

Inspectors as per the G.O.Ms.No.15 Home (Pol.V) Department dated 07.01.2010, if

there are no other legal impediment and such order shall be passed within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  No

costs.  Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

 

 

Arul

 

To

 

1.The Director General of Police,

  Tamil Nadu,

  Chennai - 4.

 

2.The Commissioner of Police,

  Tirunelveli City,

  Tirunelveli District.

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

 

DATED: 28/04/2010

 

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI

 

W.P.(MD)No.5998 of 2010

and

W.P.(MD)No.5999 of 2010

and

M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 1 of 2010

 

 

N.Ponnulingam                                                                 ... Petitioner in

                                                                                                    W.P.No.5998/2010

 

S.Ponniah                                                                    ... Petitioner in

                                                                                                    W.P.No.5999/2010

                                               

Vs

 

1.The Director General of Police,

  Tamil Nadu,

  Chennai - 4.

 

2.The Commissioner of Police,

  Tirunelveli City,

  Tirunelveli District.                                                         ... Respondents

 

 

PRAYER

 

Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying to issue a Writ of   Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the

petitioners for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from January

2008 and 2010 respectively.

 

!For Petitioner  ... Mr.S.Ramasamy

^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Manoharan, G.A.

 

 

:COMMON ORDER

 

************

                                Mr.R.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf

of the respondents.  By consent, the main writ petitions itself are taken up for

final disposal.

 

                                2. The case of the petitioners is that they are appointed as Police

Constables in the year 1975 and 1977 respectively, by direct recruitment in the

Tamil Nadu Police Department and they were promoted as Grade-I Police Constable

in the year 1993 and 1995 respectively and subsequently as Head Constable in the

year 1998 and 1999 respectively.  It is stated that the petitioners have

completed 35 years and 33 years of service in the police department and

according to them, they are eligible for consideration for promotion to the post

of Special Sub Inspectors of Police as per G.O.Ms.No.15 Home (Pol.V) Department

dated 07.01.2010, which contemplates a scheme of upgradation as a Special Sub-

Inspectors of Police in respect of a person, who is having experience of 25

years of service and 10 years of service as Head Constable in the police

department, by fixing 1st June of every year as crucial date.  The relevant

portion of the said Government Order is as follows:

                                "The Director General of Police has now stated that the Government,

in their order in G.O.Ms.No.844, Home (Police V) Department, dated 03.06.97 have

commenced the upgraded scheme in a time bound manner in respect of Police

Personnel and those Grade-II Police Constables who had completed 10 years of

service, were ordered to be upgraded as Grade-I Police Constables and Grade-I

Police Constables who had completed 5 years of service to be upgraded as Head

Constables and similarly in G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Police 3) Department, dated

21.07.1998, the Government have introduced the scheme of upgradation as Special

Sub-Inspectors of Police, for which Police Personnel appointed as Grade-II

Police Constable should have completed 25 years of service, out of which for 10

years they should have served as Head Constable, and 1st June of every year was

fixed as crucial date."

 

                                3. It is the further case of the petitioners that as per the said

Government Order, they are eligible for the upgradation under the Scheme as

Special Sub-Inspectors of Police and the petitioners have made representations

dated 15.03.2010 and 08.02.2010 respectively, for conferment to the benefit of

the said Government Order.

 

                                4. It is an admitted case that there was a departmental proceedings

initiated against the petitioners, which resulted in the order of punishment

dated 15.02.2008, by which, the petitioner have been inflicted punishment of

stoppage of increment for a period of two years, which shall not operate to

postpone their future increments and also on the pensionary benefits upon the

delinquents.

 

                                5. It is also an admitted case that as on the crucial date, the

currency of the said punishment is ineffect.  Under similar circumstances, the

Division Bench of this Court in Subramanian Vs. Government of Tamilnadu

represents by its Secretary, Chennai and others reported in 2008(5) MLJ 350,

while refusing to interfere with the punishment of stoppage of increment of 2

years with cumulative effect held that the punishment of stoppage of increment

for two years with cumulative effect can only be termed as minor punishment.  On

that basis, the petitioners could not be denied promotion and such punishment

would not stand in the way of giving promotion while considering their past

service records.  If they are otherwise eligible, taking note of the fact that

by the time, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation to consider

their promotion on supernumerary basis for the purpose of conferment of the

retirement benefits.  The portion of the said judgment is as follows:

 

                                "The petitioner was admittedly imposed punishment of stoppage of

increment for two years without cumulative effect, as per G.O.(2D) No.49, dated

16.10.2000.  As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it could be

construed only as a minor punishment and solely based on the same, he could be

denied further promotion.  It is seen further that stoppage of increment was

given effect by order, dated 16.10.2000 for two years.  The respondents have not

denied that the petitioner had to attain superannuation only on 30.04.2003.  In

such circumstances, he was eligible to be considered for promotion along with

his junior, prior to the date of superannuation.  If he is otherwise fir for

promotion along with his juniors, he would be eligible for national promotion

and based on which, eligible for corresponding retirement benefits."

 

                                6. Applying the ratio laid down by the Division Bench to the facts

and circumstances of the present cases, wherein, the punishment suffered and

which is in currency by the petitioners is stoppage of two increments without

cumulative effect and taking note of the fact that as per the G.O.Ms.No.15 Home

(Pol.V) Department dated 07.01.2010, the petitioners are eligible to be

considered for the upgradation to the next post of Special Sub-Inspectors of

Police under the scheme of the Government enumerated above.

 

                                7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are  disposed of with a

direction against the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the

petitioners' dated 15.03.2010 and 08.02.2010 and to pass appropriate orders

regarding the conferment of the upgradation of the petitioners as Special Sub-

 

Inspectors as per the G.O.Ms.No.15 Home (Pol.V) Department dated 07.01.2010, if

there are no other legal impediment and such order shall be passed within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  No

costs.  Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

 

 

Arul

 

To

 

1.The Director General of Police,

  Tamil Nadu,

  Chennai - 4.

 

2.The Commissioner of Police,

  Tirunelveli City,

  Tirunelveli District.

 

 
"Loved reading this piece by Isaac Gabriel?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Labour & Service Law
Views : 7195




Comments





Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query