BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 9/3/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD) No.2702 of 2011 A. Balusamy ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Commissioner of Police Madurai City. 2. The Additional Director General of Police Law & Order Chennai 4. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of cancellation of promotion of Special Sub-Inspector passed by the first respondent against the petitioner vide C.No.A1/7197/2010 CPO 2086/2010 dated 21/10/2010 and to quash the same. For petitioner ... Mr.P.Thangaiah For respondents... Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Spl.G.P. O R D E R By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 21/10/2010 viz., cancellation of the promotion of the petitioner as Special Sub-Inspector. 4. The said order came to be passed since he has been promoted mistakenly though punishment of postponement of increment without cumulative effect was awarded and the same is in currency. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. In view of the said fact, the respondents are justified in passing orders cancelling the promotion of the petitioner. Though normally, notice has to be given before cancellation of any promotion, in the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has to suffer the order of punishment of postponement of increment without cumulative effect and the same is in currency, when he was promoted. 6. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the first respondent is justified in passing the impugned order and I do not find any infirmity in the same. 7. In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an appeal has been preferred against the order of punishment before the second respondent and the same may be directed to be disposed of at the earliest. 9. Though the said request is alien to the prayer that has been sought for in the writ petition, I am inclined to direct the second respondent to dispose of the said appeal on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 2. The Additional Director General of Police Law & Order, Chennai 4. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 5724 W.P.(MD) No.2702 of 2011 mvs SMA/25.03.2011/4C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/