AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner was a Police Constable in Armed Reserve, in Thanjavur District. He was issued with a charge-memo dated 25.09.2004, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 on the allegation that when he purchased groceries on 12.07.2004 in the "Police Polish Store", he demanded the groceries for more than the ceiling amount of Rs. 1000/-without prior permission and that he abused the police persons employed in the stores.
Accordingly, the Petitioner has submitted explanation denying the charges. According to him, he made purchase above Rs. 1000/-on various occasions and he had also given the Bill Numbers. Hence, there was No. necessity for prior permission to purchase above Rs. 1000/-. In fact, on the said date, since the bill amount came to Rs. 1300/-, they did not give the concerned items. On the other hand, the Head Constable Mr. Ravichandran, directed the Woman Police Constable Ms. Kalyani to prepare a bill for Rs. 1111.50. Since the purchased items were not given, the Petitioner immediately complained to the first Respondent about the aforesaid action of the said Mr. Ravichandran. According to the Petitioner, the said Ravichandran did not like the Petitioner, complaining the matter and that is the cause for making a complaint as if the Petitioner abused the police persons employed in the stores.. According to the Petitioner, two Police Constables were present viz., Mr. Chidambaram and Mr. Rajan and they were aware of the facts.
Not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, five witnesses were examined on the side of the Department. The Petitioner examined two Police Constables, whom he referred to in the explanation. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report that these charges were established. Based on his finding, the first Respondent, by impugned order dated 19.12.2005, imposed the punishment of Reduction in the Time Scale-of-Pay by one stage for one year. In pursuant to which, the Petitioner preferred an appeal on 27.06.2006 to the second Respondent. The second Respondent, by an order dated 26.07.2006, confirmed the order of the first Respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, to quash the impugned orders dated 26.07.2006 and 19.12.2005 of the first and second Respondents respectively. 4. The Respondents filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegation. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner was given due opportunity and therefore, there is No. infirmity in the impugned orders.
I have heard the learned Counsel on either side.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner confines his argument that the second Respondent failed to comply with the Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 (herein after referred to as ''the Rule''), while disposing of the appeal. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of this Court in Arokiadoss v. Deputy Commissioner of Police reported in (1989 Writ L.R. 274) and also in K. Kandasamy Vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Tiruchirappalli Range and Superintendent of Police, . According to him, the second Respondent did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and he passed the impugned order mechanically contravening the Rule. The learned Counsel seeks for quashing of the order of the second Respondent and to remit the matter to the second Respondent to pass an order in accordance with the Rule 6(1).
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader seeks to sustain the order.
I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
The second Respondent passed the order dated 26.07.2006 confirming the order of the first Respondent dated 19.12.2005. The order of the second Respondent contains three paragraphs. First paragraph deals with the charge-memo. The second and third paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
on a prove minute drawn by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vallam Sub Division, Thanjavur District, the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur awarded a punishment of "Reduction in time scale of pay one stage for one year and the period of reduction shall operate to postpone his future increment its effect on pension is considered and intended" in PR 36/04 Under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules 1955.
The Appellant has preferred this petition requesting to cancel the punishment awarded in PR 36/04 Under Rule 3(b). This appeal petition is a time barred one. The Appellant has not put forth any fresh points for consideration. There are No. valid grounds for interfering with the punishment awarded, which is not excessive. Hence, the appeal petition is rejected.
Rules 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 reads as follows:
In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any penalty specified in Rule 2, the appellate authority shall consider
(a) Whether the facts on which the order was based have been established;
(b) Whether the facts e3stablished afford sufficient ground for taking action, and
(c) Whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate, and after such consideration shall pass orders as it thinks proper.
As rightly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the second Respondent failed to see whether the facts on which the order was passed have been established. The aforesaid impugned order of the second Respondent makes it clear that the second Respondent failed to comply with the Rule 6(1) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955.
The judgments of this Court reported in (1989 Writ L.R. 274) and K. Kandasamy Vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Tiruchirappalli Range and Superintendent of Police, squarely apply to the facts of this case. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second Respondent to consider and pass orders afresh in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No. costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.