@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashThe petitioner was working as a Inspector of Police attached to Airport Security at Meenakbakkam. He filed O.A. Nos. 5052 and 5420 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
2. In the first O.A., the petitioner challenged the order of punishment dated 27.06.1997 granted in P.R. No. 53/96 passed by the first respondent and confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 30.05.1998. By the impugned order, the petitioner was issued with a punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect.
3. The charge against the petitioner was that when the petitioner was working as an Inspector at F1 Police Station at Avadi on 27.04.1990 onwards. on 02.05.1990, a crime No. 381/90 was registered u/s 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, it was altered as Section 302 IPC. The petitioner was charged that he did not conduct proper investigation which finally resulted in the dismissal of the case which was tried before the District Sessions Court at Chenglepet in Sessions case No. 51/1992. The four accused in the criminal case were acquitted by the Sessions Court by a judgment dated 31.12.1992. It was stated that the Sessions Judge who tried the matter commented upon the petitioner about his not having conducted an identification parade of the accused so as to enable the witnesses to identify them. This was pointed out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chenglepet Circle and based upon his report, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(a).
4. An enquiry was directed to be conducted by the D.S.P., Avadi. The enquiry officer after analysing the materials placed before him found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based upon the said report, the first respondent agreeing with the said report imposed the said punishment. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 15.5.1998 to the second respondent. The second respondent rejected the said appeal.
5. The petitioner had raised the following grounds in his O.A.,:
i) The enquiry officer did not give separate reasons for agreeing with the enquiry report and as per the circular of the Deputy General of Police, the enquiry report was not given in advance before its acceptance.
ii) The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused only on the basis of no eye-witness and there is no adverse comments made against the petitioner.
6. The petitioner moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its interim order dated 01.07.1998, granted an interim stay on the ground that the enquiry report was not furnished before its acceptance. Even though an application for vacating the stay was filed in M.A. No. 5180/2000, the Tribunal did not take up the vacate stay application.
7. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 37254 of 2006.
8. This Court directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the copy of the Sessions Court judgment. The learned Government has also produced the copy of the Sessions Court judgment dated 31.12.1992 for perusal by this Court.
9. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated 25.01.1999. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that Rule 3(a) did not provide supply of enquiry officer''s report before its acceptance by the Enquiry Officer. It is also brought to the notice that the circular relied upon by the petitioner is no longer in existence as the Director General of Police cancelled the said circular subsequently.
10. As to whether the enquiry officer should give separate reasons is also dealt with by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in
11. Further, the non-furnishing of the enquiry report will not vitiate the penalty order unless the petitioner establish prejudice. In the present case, the petitioner had not filed his appeal memo. Even otherwise there is no averment in the O.A., that he had raised the ground of prejudice before the appellate authority. The judgment of the Supreme Court in
12. The other submission that the Sessions Court did not comment upon the petitioner, it must be stated that the petitioner was examined as P.W.19 in the Sessions trial. In paragraphs 16, 18 and 22, the petitioner''s evidence had been discussed. In paragraph 22, the Sessions Judge had clearly stated that the petitioner in his deposition had stated that when P.W.7 went to complete his morning ablutions along with P.W.8, they saw two persons throwing gunny bag and it was recorded in police investigation. It is further stated that P.W.7 in his evidence submitted that he did not know the names of the accused but he gave their identity. But before the court he said that after the incident, he saw them only during the court proceedings, thereby making the case weak. If only the petitioner had conducted an identification parade and produced that report, this lacunae would not have been found by the Sessions Judge. Hence the petitioner has no case.
13. In the O.A. No. 5420 of 1998, the petitioner sought for the promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category I pursuant of his inclusion in the regular panel of Inspectors of Police fit for appointment for the year 1996-1997and approved in G.O.Ms. No. 1612, Home (Police II0 Department dated 7.11.97 and claimed consequential service and monetary beenfits.
14. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 34110 of 2006.
15. It is an admitted case that the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of postponement of increment during the relevant time. Therefore, his name was omitted. Merely because the petitioner had obtained interim stay of the penalty order, that by itself cannot be a ground for granting him promotion. The stay granted by the Tribunal will not make the proceedings non existence. This Court has upheld the validity of the Government circular which stipulates that even if disciplinary proceedings are stayed by Tribunal, the case of the individual will not be considered for promotion vide its order dated 29.09.2006 in W.P. No. 22059 of 2006 in the matter of
16. In the light of the above, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.
