AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice D. Hariparanthaman
The petitioner is working as Inspector of Police at Kallakurichi since 1.5.1997. A Charge Memo in PR. No. 109/98 under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued to thepetitioner. He submitted his detailed explanation on 15.07.1999 denying the charges. The first respondent byimpugned order dated 28.9.1999 imposed punishment ofpostponement of increment for two years without cumulativeeffect. The appeal against the said order to the secondrespondent was rejected by order dated 2.2.2000 in C. No. B3/Appeal 89/99. The review petition to the thirdrespondent was partly allowed by order dated 13.2.2001, modifying the punishment to that of stoppage of oneincrement without cumulative effect.
The petitioner filed O.A. No. 5331 of 2001 (W.P. No. 49573 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid ordeRs.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitionersubmits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer, based on which, the impugned order dated 28.9.1999 was passed by thefirst respondent imposing the punishment of postponement ofincrement for two years without cumulative effect, was notfurnished to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order isliable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the learned Government Advocateseeks to sustain the impugned order based on the oralinstructions.
I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
The impugned order dated 28.9.1999 of the first respondent is extracted hereunder:
I agree with the findings of the G.O andthe delinquent officer has neglected his dutywhich cannot be viewed seriously in general. He failed as Inspector of Police, in his overall supervision which were shown in counts 1 to 7. Hence, I award him the punishment ofpostponement of increment for two yearswithout cumulation effect.
As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counselfor the petitioner, the impugned order is based on thefindings of the Enquiry Officer. The categoricalsubmission of the petitioner that the order was passedwithout furnishing the findings of the Enquiry Officer tohim was not controverted in the counter affidavit filed. It is also not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion thatthe impugned order was passed in blatant violation ofprinciples of natural justice. Hence, the impugned ordersare liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned ordersare quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. No costs.