1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1567 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 A.Arjunan ... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Director General of Police, Chennai. ... Respondents/ Respondents Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 14.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.8981 of 2010. WP.No.8981 of 2010: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constiution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant promotion to the Petitioner in accordance with law and without the reference to the Charge memo dated 15.5.2009. For Appellant : Mr.F.Deepak For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J) Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.By mutual consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal, at the stage of admission itself. 3.The appellant has come forward with this appeal, challenging the order of the Writ Court, dated 14.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD).No.8981 of 2010, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking for the relief of a direction to the respondents to grant promotion to the appellant, in accordance with law, without reference to the charge memo, dated 15.05.2009. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition mainly on the basis of the counter filed by the respondents herein to the effect that if the appellant prove his innocence and exonerated or acquitted of the charges, his case will be reopened and he will be upgraded, as Special Sub Inspector of Police with retrospective effect on par with his batch mates. It is submitted that by recording the above said statement made in the counter filed by the respondents, the writ Court dismissed the writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition, as per order dated 09.07.2010, the appellant came to know that the appellant was already exonerated from the charges levelled against him, as per the order, dated 29.07.2010, passed by the Director General of Police, Chennai. It is submitted that as per the said order, the charges against the appellant held as "not proved" and therefore, exonerated from the charges and such being the position, the appellant is entitled to seek the relief of promotion by submitting a fresh representation. 5.Heard the learned Government Advocate, on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is contended that the writ Court has rightly passed an order, on the basis of the counter filed by the respondents to the effect that charges were pending for enquiry against the appellant herein. 6.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the impugned order passed by the writ Court, dated 14.10.2011, as well as the order passed by the Director General of Police, dated 29.07.2010. 7.The perusal of the materials placed before this Court makes it clear that even while the writ petition was dismissed on 14.10.2011, the appellant was exonerated from the charges levelled against him, as per the order of the Director General of Police, dated 29.07.2010. But, unfortunately the said factor was not brought to the notice of the writ Court and not even stated by the respondents in their counter. Curiously, it is stated that the said charges are pending against him and the appellant can very well reopen the case, if he proves his innocence and exonerated or acquitted from the charges levelled https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 against him. Further, subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition, it is stated before this Court that the appellant has received the above said order of the Director General of Police, dated 29.07.2010, wherein the charges levelled against the appellant were held as "not proved" by the Superintendent of Police, Ramnad District, which was incorporated in the order of the Director General of Police, dated 29.07.2010. The said order of the Superintendent of Police, Ramnad District, was incorporated as hereunder: "iii)Thiru.A.Arjunan. HC.750 : P.R.No.49/2009, u/r.3(b): "Reprehensible conduct in brining one Karuppi W/o.Sonai of Kattuparamakudi daily from 25.11.2002 to 30.11.2002 without utilizing the services of women police personnel and not making relevant entries in the station records for enquiry in connection with Paramakudi Town P.S. Cr.No.455/02, u/s.454 & 380 IPC and failure in not informing the superiors about the suicidal hanging of the said Karuppi on 01.12.2002 inside the station premises while doing General Diary duty of the police Station." The Superintendent of Police, Ramnad District has held that the charges against him are as "Not Proved" in PR.49/2009, u/r.3(b)." 8.The reading of the above said order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ramanad District, makes it abundantly clear that the charges levelled against the appellant have been held as "not proved" and accordingly, the Director General of Police by placing reliance on such report of the Superintendent of Police, Ramnad District, had exonerated the appellant from the charges levelled against him. Therefore, we are of the view that it is open to the appellant to prefer a fresh representation, on the basis of the above said order of the Director General of Police, dated 29.07.2010 and seek for the relief of promotion to the higher post viz., Sub Inspector of Police, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of the receipt of such representation, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 9.With the above directions, the writ appeal is hereby disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Director General of Police, Chennai +One Cc to Mr.F.Deepak, Advocate, SR.No.44931 +One Cc to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.44999 gcg rl/6c – 6.1.2012 Judgment In W.A.(MD)No.1567 of 2011 Dated: 20.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/