Formal disciplinary charges or a filed criminal final report bar promotion consideration.

The petitioner, an Additional Superintendent of Police (Technical), challenged G.O.(Ms.) No. 128 dated 10 March 2026, promoting the seventh respondent to Superintendent of Police (Technical)/Deputy Commissioner of Police (Technical).

He contended that both he and the seventh respondent had been implicated in the same vigilance case, but only the seventh respondent was considered for promotion.

The respondents stated that the seventh respondent had been deleted from the final report and exonerated in disciplinary proceedings, whereas the petitioner remained an accused in the final report and was facing disciplinary proceedings.

The judgment refers predominantly to Crime No. 2 of 2020, though the respondents’ submissions in paragraph 3 refer to Crime No. 2 of 2025.

1. Whether the petitioner’s exclusion from the promotion panel, while the seventh respondent was promoted, warranted interference with the promotion order.

2. Whether further directions were warranted concerning the criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

The Court applied G.O.(Ms.) Nos. 367 and 368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, both dated 12 November 1992, under which a government servant against whom specific charges have been framed or a final report has been filed in a criminal case cannot be considered for promotion.

It also referred to Rule 17(a) and Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in describing the respective disciplinary proceedings.

For the direction concerning conclusion of the petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings, the Court relied on the guidelines in G.O.Ms. No. 81, Human Resources Management Department, dated 4 August 2022.

The Court also directed that the criminal trial be concluded as provided under Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court found that the seventh respondent’s circumstances differed from the petitioner’s: the seventh respondent had been deleted from the criminal final report and exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, while the petitioner remained named in the final report and was facing disciplinary proceedings.

Applying the 1992 Government Orders, the Court held that the petitioner’s pending criminal and disciplinary matters prevented his consideration for promotion and provided no basis to quash the seventh respondent’s promotion.

Although the petitioner relied on an endorsement suggesting that the final report had not been filed, the Court accepted the respondents’ submission that it had been e-filed and taken on file as C.C. No. 259 of 2024.

The Court separately considered the delay in the petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings and the status of the final report, and issued directions to address those matters.

The Special Court for trial of Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Chennai, was directed to ensure that the final report was taken on file in a time-bound manner, if not already done, and to conclude the trial in accordance with Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The respondents were also directed to conclude the petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings at the earliest, in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 81 dated 4 August 2022.

No costs were ordered; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.