IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.NO.39853 OF 2006 D.Swaminathan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Home (Police III) Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2.The Director General of Police Chennai 4. .. Respondents PRAYER : Original Application No.8179 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for inclusion of his name in the 'C' list of Sub-Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 1999-2000 as communicated by the second respondent in Rc.No.129130/NGB I(1)/99 dated 12.08.1999 without taking into consideration the punishment suffered by the applicant in PR.No.168/97 dated 07.08.1998 and PR.53/98 dated 17.11.1998 and promote the applicant as Inspector of Police with all consequential service and monetary benefits. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam Government Advocate O R D E R
Original Application No.8179 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the ‘C’ list of Sub-Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 1999-2000 as communicated by the second respondent in Rc.No.129130/NGB I(1)/99 dated 12.08.1999 without taking into consideration the punishment suffered by the petitioner in PR.No.168/97 dated 07.08.1998 and PR.53/98 dated 17.11.1998 and promote the petitioner as Inspector of Police with all consequential service and monetary benefits. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition.
2.Reply affidavit has been filed by the second respondent stating that during the crucial date, the petitioner was undergoing the punishment and therefore, his claim was not considered. This findings is not disputed by the petitioner. In terms of Rule 4(a) of G.O.Ms.No.368, P and AR Department, dated 18.10.1993 the currency of punishment will be a bar for considering the name of the petitioner for promotion.
3.In such view of the matter, the petitioner claim was not considered by the department in accordance with the above said Rules rightly so. Finding no merits, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
vsm
To
1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home (Police III) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2.The Director General of Police
Chennai 4