IPS officer R. Dhinakaran moves Central Administrative Tribunal challenging denial of promotion

He said he had served the Police Department with the utmost dedication and received medals for meritorious services.

R. Dhinakaran, who assumed office as the new IG of West Zone in Coimbatore. File | Photo Credit: S. Siva Saravanan

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Chennai has ordered notice to the Tamil Nadu government, the Union government and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on an application that senior IPS officer and Inspector-General of Police R. Dhinakaran filed challenging a charge memo issued to him and denial of promotion. 

Mr. Dhinakaran belongs to the 1998 batch of the IPS officers. He is serving as IGP, Idol Wing-CID.  He is the senior-most officer of his batch of his cadre. In his application filed before the CAT, he said he had served the Police Department with the utmost dedication and received medals from the State and Central governments for meritorious services. 

He was served with a charge memo on December 23 last year under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, on one of the charges, including failure to prevent illegal sale of prohibited gutka in his jurisdiction while serving as the Joint Commissioner of Police, North, Chennai, from December 25, 2014 to February 29,2016. 

He said he had reliably learnt that pursuant to the investigation in the gutka scam, the CBI recommended for departmental action against 10 police officers and retired IPS officers, including retired Directors-General of Police T.K. Rajendran and S. George, retired IGP C. Sridhar and seven serving officers, including him. All except him were summoned and questioned by the CBI, which also recorded their statements.

Mr. Dhinakaran said he was never called for any inquiry by the CBI as there was no material evidence against him. He had even given a representation in person to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, narrating the fact that his name did not find a place explicitly in any of the evidence gathered by the CBI. No decision was taken on the same; but, strangely, based on the CBI’s recommendations which were given in March 2022,  a charge memo was issued against the applicant alone on December 22, just seven days prior to his promotion. He alone was denied promotion as the Additional Director-General of Police.

Strangely, officers against whom the CBI recommended departmental action were not served any charge memo, Mr. Dhinakaran said. Besides, in respect of two officers of the rank of SP, against whom departmental action was recommended by CBI, the government gave clean chit to the Ministry of Home Affairs for inclusion of their names in the IPS panel.

The charge memo issued at the last minute for an alleged dereliction of duty in 2016, with a delay of six years, was only to deny the applicant promotion. The applicant said this delay had prejudiced the case and deprived him of a reasonable chance to effectively defend his case. It is well settled by a number of judgments, including those of the CAT, that delay in issuance of the charge memo by itself would result in prejudice and consequently a violation of the principles of natural justice. 

Mr. Dhinakaran also prayed the CAT to stay the operation of the charge memo and direct the respondents — the Central and State governments — to grant him promotion as the Additional Director-General of Police.