State Of Tamil Nadu And Another vs P. Bose And Another

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal set aside the decision of the department not to include the name of the respondent No. 1 in the list of candidates eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Inspector of Police. It transpires that in the year 1987 the respondent No. 1 was visited with three punishments : (i) a censure on 17-11-for neglect of duty in not attending to law and Order situation which arose due to water scarcity; (ii) postponement of increment for neglect of duty in delaying the registration of a case Madurai City B-8 Police Station Cr. No. 567/87, under Ss. 448 and 376, I.P.C.; and (iii) a censure on 15-12-1987 for irresponsible conduct and disobedience of instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police. All these acts of misconduct and misdemeanour were during the period of two months. i.e. April and May, 1987. When the question of considering whether or not respondent No. 1 was fit for promotion to the next higher post came up for consideration in on account of the aforesaid punishments with which he was visited in the year 1987 for acts of misconduct/ misdemeanour during the months of April and May, 1987 the authorities, did not consider him fit for inclusion in the panel for promotion. Thereupon, respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal relying on G.O. Ms. No. 289 dated 12-3-1980 came to the conclusion that since the misconduct was not of a serious nature e.g., corruption, gross negligence or failure in the discharge of duties and responsibilities but the charges for which the punishments were imposed being relatively of a minor nature, the authorities ought to have considered his overall performance. We are afraid we cannot accede to this line of reasoning. The respondent No. 1 being a Police Officer, was expected to show devotion and dedication to duty and this is what he lacked if we are to bear in mind the reasons why he was visited with three punishments during year 1987. Failure to attend to duty to restore law and Order, failure to promptly register a serious offence and refusal to carry out or obey instructions of a superior, though visited with minor penalties are not matters which are not germane to the selection process. The next higher post of Inspector of Police being a very responsible post a person with a weak record with three punishments in the immediately preceding year if not selected, could not be heard to say that though fit for promotion to the next higher post he was wrongly ignored. The post of Inspector of Police being a pivotal post in a uniformed service must be filled in by persons of integrity and devotion to duty and internal discipline and anyone who has betrayed a tendency to ignore the same in the immediate past cannot aspire for promotion. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in interfering with the selection process. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the discretion of those who were charged with the duty to select persons eligible for promotion.

2. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned Order of the Tribunal and restore the Order of the authorities by which the authorities did not consider the respondent No. 1 as fit for inclusion in that year's panel for promotion to the next higher post. There will be no Order as to costs.