2004 INSC 0231
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                            State of Tamil Nadu

                                                      Vs.

                                               T.M. Pasupathy

                                        C.A.No.7244-7245 of 1997

                                  (Brijesh Kumar and Arun Kumar JJ.)

                                                 17.02.2004

                                                JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.

1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, allowing in part, the O.As. preferred by the respondent against his
non-consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, in the
selections held in the years 1985-86 and 1989-90.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent though served has
not put in appearance.

3. It appears that some departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent on
various charges of misconduct which also covered some earlier period upto 1983-84. Some
punishments were awarded to the respondent on some counts, and as also indicated by the
learned counsel for the appellants, he was exonerated of some charges by the disciplinary
authority. It appears that on two occasions there was order for reduction of his salary.
Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to specifically point out the actual year
of alleged misconduct and particular punishment which was awarded to the respondent on
proof of which of the charges.

4. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, has taken the view that some punishments,
which were awarded for the period not in proximity of the period of the selection for
promotion, they were not liable to be taken into consideration. In that view of the mater, it
has been held that so far promotion exercise for the year 1985-86 is concerned, non-
consideration of the respondent in the said selection, being in proximity of the period of
alleged misconduct for which some punishments were awarded, was justified. However, as
far the selection held in the year 1989-90 is concerned, it being distant in period of time from
the period of alleged misconduct and punishments, there was no reason not to consider the
respondent. It is not that the respondent was not to be considered for future promotion for

1  SpotLaw
ever. Hence, it directed the appellant to pass order in respect of the claim of the respondent
for promotion for the year 1989-90 and to consider his claim on merits for subsequent period.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants could not indicate any substantial ground to challenge
the order of the Tribunal except the only one, canvassed before us, that the respondent was
under suspension in 1987. We feel, that by itself will not be enough for non-consideration of
the respondent for promotion. It has not been indicated that any punishment was awarded in
those proceedings rather it appears that the suspension was revoked and the respondent was
exonerated. We hardly find any good ground, much less which may have been indicated or
substantiated by the appellants, to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The
appeals have no force and hence they are dismissed. The interim orders, if any operating,
shall stand vacated.

2  SpotLaw