Allowed

C.Thamizh Chelvi, v. The Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC26 Nov 2018WP/11876/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a police officer can be included in a promotion panel if no suspension, formulated charges, or pending criminal case with charge sheet existed on the relevant date. The court directed the respondents to include the petitioner in the 2017-18 promotion list.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to include petitioner in C list of Sub-Inspector fit for promotion as Inspector of Police (Taluk) for 2017-18 and grant consequential benefits within four weeks.

C.Thamizh Chelvi, Vs The Secretary to Govt. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.11.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶5

Writ Petition No.11876 of 2018

¶6

C.Thamizh Chelvi ... Petitioner

¶7

..vs..

¶8

The Secretary to Government, Home (Police IV) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

¶9

The Director General of Police,

¶10

Dr. Radha Krishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of her name in the C list of SubInspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police (Taluk) for the year 2017-18 in RC No.6758/444/ NGBV(1)/ P/05/2018 dt.14.4.18 notwithstanding and without reference to the pending criminal case registered in Crime No.45/2017 of Palur Police Station and promote her as Inspector of Police (Taluk) and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits at par with her junior.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Venkataramani, Sr. Counsel, for, M/s. M.Muthappan

¶13

For Respondents : Mr. A.N.Thambidurai, Spl.GP.,

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Police, who are found fit for promotion as Inspector of Police (Taluk), for the year 2017-18, without reference to the pending criminal case registered in Crime No.45/2017 of Palur Police Station and to promote her as Inspector of Police (Taluk) and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with her junior.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the date of preparation of the panel, i.e., on

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

01.06.2017, there was neither an order of suspension nor formulated charge nor any pending criminal case and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been included in the panel for promotion of Inspector of Police and the order of the respondents declining the inclusion of her name in the panel is not proper.

¶19

2.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gunasekaran v. The Secretary to Government and another, in W.P.No.13931 of 2008, dated 04.11.2008, where-under in paragraph 6, it has been observed that on the date of consideration of the panel, the petitioner neither faced any disciplinary proceedings nor there was any suspension nor there was a charge sheet and therefore, there is no impediment to include the name of the petitioner in the panel fit for promotion.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the fact that even though the criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in respect of Crime No.45 of 2017, no charge sheet has been pending as on 01.06.2017.

¶21

The factual aspects are not under dispute. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the persons claiming for promotion can be deferred only on three grounds, namely, suspension, formulated charges or charges in a criminal case. None of them had been pending against the petitioner on the date of consideration of the panel for promotion, i.e., on 01.06.2017. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner has to be accepted.

¶22

In view of the foregoing reasons, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of her name in the C list of Sub-Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 2017-18 without reference to the pending criminal case registered in Crime No.45 of 2017 of Palur Police Station and to pass consequential orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶25

//True copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

srk

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

¶30

The Secretary to Government, Home (Police IV) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009

¶31

The Director General of Police, Dr. Radha Krishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004

¶32

+1cc to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate SR.No.81523

¶33

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.81392
W.P.No.11876 of 2018
VSN II(CO)
GMY(28/12/2018)

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.Thamizh Chelvi, v. The Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Thamizh Chelvi, v. The Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elaiyappan,S/o.Munian Vs The State of TamilNadu

R.P.Kasthuri, Vs The District Collector

M.Ameerkhan, Vs The Principal Conservator of Forests

V.Tamilselvi, Vs The Principal Secretary to the

Mrs. C.Jespheenammal, Vs The Commissioner

J.Sundrarajan, Vs The Principal Secretary