Madras High Court
R.Murali vs The Director General Of Police on 24 November, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.P.No.28061 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.P.No.28061 of 2014
R.Murali,
Sub Inspector of Police,
Assistant Law Instructor,
Police Recruit School,
Salem. .. Petitioner
vs
1.The Director General of Police,
Law and Order, Chennai.
2.Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call
for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first
respondent herein in his proceedings Rc.No.212107/NGB I(2)/2013
dated 22.03.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents herein to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Police
(Taluk) in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs. V.Rani (2011 (4) MLJ page 1)
without reference to punishment of postponement of increment for
one year without cumulative effect imposed in P.R.No.26/2010
dated 09.08.2010 and P.R.No.16/H2/2010 dated 25.01.2011 with all
consequential monetary and service benefits.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:30 pm )
W.P.No.28061 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.P.Balathandayutham,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Mr.Murali, Sub Inspector of Police attached to Police Recruit
School, Salem, has preferred this writ petition, challenging the
order passed by the Director General of Police vide proceedings
dated 22.03.2014 for non-inclusion of his name in the panel of C list
of Sub Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspectors of Police
(Taluk) for the panel year 2013-2014 for having currency of
postponement of increment without cumulative effect.
2. The subject matter of the writ petition is that writ petitioner
was serving as Sub Inspector of Police and the name of the writ
petitioner was supposed to be included in the C list of Sub
Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspectors of Police (Taluk)
for the panel year 2012-2013. While considering his name for
inclusion, it was found that he suffers currency of punishment as
below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:30 pm )
S . No. P R N o. & R u le P u n i s h ment aw a rded a nd by
who m
1 1 3/ 2 0 1 0 u/r 3(a) of Thiruvarur Postp on e m e nt of n ext incre m e nt for
District o n e y ear w ith out cu m ulativ e effe ct
b y SP, Thiruvarur o n 2 3. 0 4. 2 0 1 0.
This punish m e nt tak es effe ct fro m
0 1 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 1 to 3 1 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 1 .
2 PR No. 1 4/2 0 1 0 u/r 3(a) of Postp on e m e nt of n ext incre m e nt for
Thiruvarur District o n e y ear w ith out cu m ulativ e effe ct
b y SP, Thiruvarur o n 2 3. 0 4. 2 0 1 0.
This punish m e nt tak es m o n etary
effe ct fr o m 0 1.0 1.2 0 1 2 to
3 1. 1 2. 2 0 1 2.
3 PR No. 2 6/2 0 1 0 u/r 3(a) of Postp on e m e nt of n ext incre m e nt for
Thiruvarur District o n e y ear w ith out cu m ulativ e effe ct
b y SP, Thiruvarur o n 0 9. 0 8. 2 0 1 0.
This punish m e nt tak es m o n etary
effe ct fr o m 0 1.0 1.2 0 1 3 to
3 1 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 3.
4 PR No. 1 6/2 0 1 0 u/r 3(a) of Sale m Postp on e m e nt of n ext incre m e nt for
District o n e y ear w ith out cu m ulativ e effe ct
b y ADSP, Cri m e, Sale m o n
2 5 .01 .2 0 1 1 . This punish m e nt tak es
m o n etary effe ct fro m 0 1 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 4 to
3 1. 1 2. 2 0 1 4.
Hence his name was not included.
3. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed on the
ground that the punishment of postponement of increment for one
year without cumulative effect passed on 09.08.2010 which had
monetary effect from 01.01.2013 ought not to have stood in the
way of the name of the petitioner being considered for inclusion in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:30 pm )
the promotional list in view of the Full Bench judgment rendered by
this Court in The Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs.
V.Rani reported in (2011 (4) MLJ 1). The contention of the writ
petitioner is that in the light of the dictum laid down by the Full
Bench of this Court, on the date of consideration for drawal of the
panel, the petitioner was not suffering any punishment. According
to the writ petitioner, when there is no currency of punishment, his
name ought not to have been excluded from the promotional panel.
He pleads that the punishment of postponement of increment for
one year without cumulative effect by order dated 25.01.2011 is
only in respect of monetary effect whereas the punishment of
postponement of increment was issued much earlier i.e., on
09.08.2010. One year period of postponement of increment lapsed
before the drawal of panel for the year 2012-2013.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
State submitted that the proceedings passed by the Director
General of Police dated 22.03.2014, on considering the
representation of the writ petitioner and pursuant to the direction of
the High Court passed in W.P.No.33831 of 2013, would clearly
disclose that the writ petitioner was subjected to four PRs under
Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1955, and in each PR, specific punishment has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:30 pm )
imposed. The currency of punishment commenced from 01.01.2011
and continued till 31.12.2014. In the light of punishment imposed in
those four PRs, it has been implemented one after another.
Therefore, it is incorrect to plead that the currency of punishment
was much prior to drawal of promotional panel.
5. The contention of the writ petitioner and the impugned
order read together indicates that the writ petitioner has not only
suffered one PR i.e., PR 26/2010 dated 09.08.2010 but he had
already suffered two PRs viz., PR 13/2010 and PR 14/2010.
Postponement of increment in those two cases ended only on
31.12.2011 and 31.12.2012 respectively and therefore, the
punishment in the third PR commenced after that. Unfortunately,
the petitioner was facing departmental enquiry in four cases. The
findings were on 23.04.2010, 23.04.2010, 09.08.2010 and
25.01.2011 respectively. In all cases, the punishment was for one
year without cumulative effect. Thus, four year period commenced
on 01.01.2011 and ended on 31.12.2014 whereas the promotional
panel was drawn on 07.06.2012 for the year 2012-2013 and for the
year 2013-2014, it was on 01.06.2013. During that period, there
was currency of punishment. Therefore, the plea of the writ
petitioner that there was no currency of punishment and therefore
the dictum laid down by Full Bench (cited supra) to be applied is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:30 pm )
incorrect. The Full Bench judgment will apply only when there is no
currency of punishment. The currency of punishment means that
real effect of punishment taking force. Hence I find that the grounds
raised in the writ petition are unsustainable and hence this writ
petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
24.11.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mmi
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Law and Order, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:30 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,. J.
mmi
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:30 pm )
