1 was visited with three punishments i a censure on 17 11 for neglect of duty in number 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.
1 approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal relying on G.O. Ms. No.
All these acts of misconduct and misdemeanour were during the period of two months.
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 number 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.
i.e. April and May, 1987.
1 was fit for promotion to the next higher post came up for companysideration 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 number companysider him fit for inclusion in the panel for promotion.
Thereupon, respondent No.
567/87, under Ss.
289 dated 12 3 1980 came to the companyclusion that since the misconduct was number of a serious nature e.g., companyruption, 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 companysidered his overall performance.
448 and 376, I.P.C. and iii a censure on 15 12 1987 for irresponsible companyduct and disobedience of instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
When the question of companysidering whether or number respondent No.
