[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Su.Ramesh Raj vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 13 March, 2026

                                                                                            WP No. 22504 of 2019


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                 RESERVED ON : 09.03.2026

                                             PRONOUNCED ON : 13.03.2026

                                                    CORAM:
                                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

                                                      W.P.No. 22504 of 2019
                      Su.Ramesh Raj                                                              ..Petitioner

                                                                     Vs

                      1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
                      Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department,
                      Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

                      2.     The Director General of Police,
                      No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

                                                                                                ..Respondents

                                  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to
                     include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the approved
                     panel for appointment by recruitment by transfer to the post of Deputy
                     Superintendent of Police (Category 1) for the year 2018-19 and to promote
                     the petitioner to the said post prior to or along with his juniors in the panel
                     and to grant him all consequential benefits.
                     _________
                     Page 1 of 18




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                   ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )
                                                                                             WP No. 22504 of 2019


                                              For Petitioner          : Mr.M.Ravi
                                              For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
                                                                       Additional Government Pleader
                                                                  ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional

Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials available

on record.

2. Briefly, stated the case of the petitioner is that he is working

as Inspector of Police and became eligible for being promoted to the post of

Deputy Superintendent of Police; that in order to be considered and granted

promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, his name is

required to be included in the panel for the year 2018-2019; that the

respondents did not include/consider his name for being granted promotion

to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police even though on the

'crucial date' for preparation of the panel for the year 2018-2019

i.e., on 01.06.2018, no charge memo has been issued to him nor any criminal

case was pending against him; that the respondents by causing delay in

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

preparation of panel for the year 2018-2019 till 24.07.2019 have excluded

the petitioner's name from being included in the panel on the ground that an

FIR dated 28.06.2019 is registered against him.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he become

eligible for being considered and granted promotion during the panel year

2018-2019, the respondents by delaying the preparation of the panel till

24.07.2019 cannot exclude the name of the petitioner from being included in

the panel for the year 2018-2019; that as per Section 7 read with Sub-clause

(5) of Clause-II, Part-A of Schedule XI of Tamilnadu Government Servants

(Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (in short “Act 2016”) as applicable to the

respondents Police Services, the name of the member of service shall not to

be considered for inclusion in the approved list only when the charge memo

is issued or charge sheet is filed in a criminal case, on the crucial date; and

that the crucial date for the panel year 2018-2019 being 01.06.2018, the

respondents could not have taken subsequent event i.e., registration of FIR

on 28.06.2019 which falls in the panel year 2019 -2020 as basis not to

include his name in the panel for the promotion to the post of Deputy _________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

Superintendent of Police.

4. It is also the further case of the petitioner that though he was issued

with a charge memo dated 10.06.2016 proposing to impose penalty under

Rule 3(b) of Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1955, (in short “ TNDA Rules”), the said proceeding resulted in

petitioner being awarded with penalty under Rule 3(a) of the TNDA Rules;

that imposition of penalty under Rule 3(a) of the TNDA Rules cannot act as

a bar for considering inclusion of his name in the approved panel list to the

promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police during the panel

year 2018-2019.

5. The petitioner further contended that though an FIR was registered

against him on 28.06.2019 i.e., during the panel year 2019-2020, the

respondents have included his name for promotion to the post of Deputy

Superintendent as no charge sheet had been filed in the said crime on the

crucial date; that the basis adopted for including his name in the panel year _________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

of 2019-2020 infact could have been applied during the panel year 2018-

2019 when not even an FIR has been registered against him on the crucial

date; as the sanction for prosecuting had been granted only on 29.07.2024;

and thus, the respondents could not have excluded the petitioner from being

considered and promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police

during the panel year 2018-2019.

6. Contending as above, the petitioner seeks for consequential relief of

directing the respondents to include his name in the approved panel list of

Inspector of Police eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy

Superintendent of Police in the year 2018-2019.

7. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents is filed.

8. The respondents by the counter affidavit while admitting to the fact

that the petitioner reached the zone of consideration for the first time for

inclusion in the temporary panel of Inspector of Police fit for appointment _________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

by recruitment by transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I)

for the year 2016-2017, for which, the crucial date is 01.06.2016, his name

was not recommended by the Police Establishment Board in view of the

pendency of charges under Rule 3(b) of TNDA Rules 1955, which charge

memo latter resulted in petitioner being awarded punishment of

“postponement of increment for 1 year which shall not operate to postpone

his future increment” by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram

range on 10.06.2016; that the aforesaid punishment awarded was

implemented during the period 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017.

9. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that

since, the punishment awarded to the petitioner shall not operate to

postponement his future increment, his name was again considered for

appointment by transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police for the panel

year 2017-2019, for which, the crucial date is 01.06.2017, as his name was

not recommended, he was not granted promotion.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

10. The respondents by the counter affidavit contended that

subsequently the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore

unit took up detailed enquiry on 08.04.2014 into the disproportionate assets

and properties acquired by the petitioner's father as belonging to the

petitioner and registered a case vide FIR No.14 of 2019 dated 28.06.2019.

11. The respondents, by the counter affidavit further contended that as

the Sub Clause(1) of Clause II of Part A of Schedule XI read with Section

7(1) of Act 2016 provides for deferring of member of service from being

considered for promotion where specific charges have been framed or charge

sheet has been filed in a criminal case, since, the Vigilance and

Anti-Corruption had taken up detailed enquiry on 08.04.2014 and informed

the respondents of the same vide letter dated 06.11.2019 and also the

concurrence of Vigilance commission obtained by them vide letter dated

23.05.2019, whereupon a regular case is registered against the petitioner and

is under investigation, though the name of the petitioner was recommended

for inclusion by the second respondent vide his letter dated 21.03.2019 in _________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

the temporary panel of Inspectors of Police (Taluk) fit for appointment as

Deputy Superintendent of Police at S.No.63, the first respondent while

approving the temporary panel fit for appointment by recruitment by transfer

as Deputy Superintendent of Police in G.O.Ms.No.375 dated 24.07.2019,

had deferred the name of the petitioner for inclusion in the above panel.

12. The respondents by the counter affidavit also contended that

non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner during the panel year 2018-2019

was only on account of the pending enquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance

and Anti-Corruption, Cuddalore Unit, resulting in registration of FIR No.14

of 2019 on 28.06.2019 based on the approval of the Vigilance Commission

on 23.05.2019.

13. The respondents, by the counter further contended that

non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel year 2018-2019, the

petitioner submitted representation on 30.07.2019 to the first respondent

who had sought for specific remarks from the second respondent; that the

second respondent vide his letter dated 18.12.2019 and 23.05.2020 has _________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

furnished detailed remarks, stating that since, the Vigilance and

Anti-Corruption case is based on the outcome of the detailed enquiry in

Departmental Enquiry registered against the petitioner on 08.04.2014; and

that the said case is under investigation and no charge sheet has been filed in

the criminal case, the name of the petitioner was recommended for inclusion

in the temporary panel for the year 2018-2019 at S.No.3(A) between his

immediate senior Thiru.R.Balaji and his immediate Junior

Thiru.N.Ravikumar at S.No.4 and his pay may be fixed notionally on par

with his immediate junior on 01.09.2019 as per Ruling 17 under FR 27

subject to relaxation of Rule 4(G) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu

Police Service for completion of Pre-promotion course of four weeks

conducted by the Tamil Nadu Police Academy.

14. The respondents, by the counter affidavit contended that in the

meantime, as the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.450 dated 29.07.2024

according sanction for prosecution against the petitioner regarding the case

registered against him vide FIR No.14 of 2019, the petitioner cannot claim

that the aforesaid case registered against him is only at an enquiry stage as _________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

filing of charge sheet is only a next consequential step; that accordingly, the

Government in letter dated 14.11.2024 had returned the proposal for

inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the panel year 2018-2019 to be

examined after the outcome of the aforesaid criminal case.

15. It is the further contention of the respondents that the name of the

petitioner was recommended for inclusion by the 2nd respondent vide his

letter dated 21.03.2020 in the panel year 2019-2029 and the first respondent

has approved the temporary panel of Inspector of Police and appointed the

petitioner as Deputy superintendent of Police in the year 2019-2020 in

G.O.Ms.No.236 dated 17.06.2020 and the name of the petitioner was

included in the above panel at S.No.7 and the petitioner was promoted as

Deputy Superintendent of Police on 04.09.2020 and is presently serving as

Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I), Economic Offences Wing,

Cuddalore.

16. Contending as above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the

writ petition.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

17. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged by the

learned counsel on either side.

18. At the outset, it is to be noted that preparation of list for panel year

is never undertaken when it is due and on the other hand, the preparation of

panel for each year is infact dragged so much that it runs into the next panel

year. Even in the present case, the temporary list of Inspector of Police to

be appointed on transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police for the panel

year 2018-2019 is not taken up during the year 2018-2019 but is taken up on

24.07.2019 which date falls in the panel year of 2019 – 2020. Judicial

notice can be taken on the fact that in certain cases the respondent State by

not undertaking the preparation of the panels during the currency of the

relevant panel year, had ensured that some of the members of services who

are eligible for promotion get retired from service without getting the

promotions to which they are eligible and forcing them to approach this

Court for granting notational promotion and for fixation of pensionary _________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

benefits on the basis of the notional promotion. The non-preparation of the

temporary list of the respective panel year within reasonable time of the

panel year renders the crucial date for eligibility, mentioned in the Act 2016

and the relevant Rules redundant or otiose. If only, the respondents/State

takes up the exercise of preparation of temporary list relevant for the each of

the panel year in time, having regard to Section 7 of the Act 2016 read with

Schedule XI of the Act 2016, the same would put an end to the litigation of

the present nature.

19. In the facts of the present case, the respondents while admitting to

the fact that the petitioner became eligible for being included in the

temporary list for appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of

Police by transfer from the post of Inspector of Police during the penal year

2018-2019, not only did not place him at appropriate place in the list

initially, forcing the petitioner to submit representation to the first

respondent on 30.07.2019. Further, on the said representation being

forwarded to the second respondent for his specific remarks, and the second

respondent vide his letter dated 18.12.2019 and 23.05.2020 having furnished _________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

detailed remark stating that the petitioner is eligible for being included in the

temporary list of the panel year 2018-2019 fit for appointment by

recruitment by transfer as Deputy Inspector of Police by placing him at

S.No.3(A) i..e, between his immediate Senior and immediate Junior, not

only the respondents acted thereon, but infact dragged their feet till 2024 to

claim that a sanction for prosecution of petitioner has been accorded vide

G.O.Ms.No.450 dated 29.07.2024.

20. Further, it is also to be noted that mere according of sanction for

prosecution cannot be considered as filing of a charge sheet in the criminal

case as mandated under Sub Clause (5) of Clause II, Part-A of Schedule XI

of Section 7 (1) of the Act 2016. The Act of filing a charge sheet is totally

different from the act of according sanction for prosecution under the

provisions of Cr.P.C/BNSS.

21. Thus, the respondents cannot take shelter for non-inclusion of the

name of the petitioner in the temporary list for the panel year 2018-2019

either on the ground of registration of case vide FIR No.14 of 2019 dated _________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

28.06.2019 or sanction for prosecution being accorded subsequently on

29.07.2024, while the crucial date to be reckoned as per Section 7 read with

Schedule XI is 01.06.2018. Since, on the crucial date i.e., 01.06.2018

inasmuch as there was no charge memo that has been issued to the petitioner

nor a charge sheet is filed in any criminal case as mandated under

Sub Clause (5) of Clause II Part-A of Schedule XI of the Act 2016, and also

taking note that the second respondent by his letter dated 18.12.2019 and

23.05.2020 having rightly recommended for inclusion of name of the

petitioner in the temporary panel fit for appointment by recruitment by

transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police for the panel year 2018-2019 at

Sl.No.3(A) i.e., between S.No.3 and 4, the respondents ought to have acted

on the said recommendation and ought not to have taken note of the sanction

for prosecution accorded 4 ½ years thereafter to justify their action of

exclusion.

22. Further, the stand of the respondents by the counter affidavit is

self-contradictory. The respondents on one hand while seeking to justify

their action for non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in temporary list _________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

for the panel year 2018-2019 rely on the case registered vide FIR No.14 of

2019 on 28.06.2019 and subsequent sanction for prosecution on 29.07.2024,

seeks to ignore the same while considering the petitioner name for inclusion

in the temporary list of the panel year 2019-2020. Thus, the action of the

respondents in not including/deferring the inclusion of the name of the

petitioner in the temporary list fit for appointment by recruitment by transfer

as Deputy Superintendent of Police for the panel year 2018-2019 in the

considered view of this Court is contrary to the mandate of Section 7 read

with Sub Clause (5) of Clause II, Part A of Schedule XI of the Act, 2016

reading as under:

“Mere filing of cases in Courts by the appropriate Investigating Authority against a member of service, shall not be a bar for inclusion of his name in the approved list. If specific charges are framed or charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case on the crucial date his name shall not be considered for inclusion in the approved list.”

23. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents

are directed to include the name of the petitioner in the temporary list of _________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 07:48:17 pm )

Inspector of Police fit for appointment by transfer as Deputy Superintendent

of Police for the panel year 2018-2019 by placing him at appropriate place

i.e., above his immediate junior and below his immediate senior and grant

him promotion with all consequential benefits within a period of 12 weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to

costs.

13.03.2026

msv

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order:Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No