AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—Heard Mr. K. Venkatramani, Senior Counsel for petitioner and Tmt. C.K. Vishnupriya, Additional Government Pleader for
respondent in this O.A.
In this O.A. 1013 of 2002 (W.P. 8366 of 2007), the order dated 29.09.2000 of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Srivaigundam, Tuticorin District,
the second respondent herein, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect is questioned.
The Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority. According to him, the Superintendent is the competent authority
to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect as per column 4 of the Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, shortly the rules.
Rule 2 prescribes various penalties and the penalty of withholding of increment is transcribed under Rule 2(1)(c). Rule 4 of the rules state that the authority,
which may impose any of the penalties transcribed in Rule 2 on a member of the service specified in column (i) of the schedule, shall be the authority specified
in the corresponding entry in the columns (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii), depending upon the nature of punishment. That is, while column one of the
schedule is relating to a member of the police subordinate service, on whom various punishments mentioned in column (ii) to column (viii) would be imposed by
the authorities mentioned against those columns or any higher authority.
If Inspector of police is the delinquent, one has to see the column (i), where Inspector of police is mentioned. Thereafter, it has to be ascertained the
competent authority, who could impose punishment on him, depending on the nature of punishment. Column (iv) is relating to the punishment of withholding of
increment and as against the Inspector of police, the Superintendent is mentioned in column(iv) as the competent authority to impose the punishment. Likewise,
column (viii) is relating to removal from service and as against the Inspector of Police in column (i), the competent authority mentioned in column (viii) against
the Inspector of police is Deputy Inspector General of Police. The Schedule prescribed under the Rules are given here below for better appreciation of the
case.
THE SCHEDULE
(Referred to in Rules 2, 4 and 5)
Lowest authority which may impose the penalty of
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Reprimand Censure or Withholding Reduction Recovery Suspension Compulsory Appellate
service black mark of to a lower from pay retirement authority
in the case increments rank in the of the or removal
of Reserve or seniority whole or dismissal
Assistant, promotion list or to a or part
Sub or stoppage lower grade of any
Inspector at an post or time pecuniary
Head efficiency scale or to a loss
Constables bar or lower stage caused to
and others recovery in the same Government
of from pay time scale by
Correspon- to the negligence
ding rank extent or breach
necessary of orders
value
equivalent
to the
amount of
increments
ordered to
be withheld
where such
an order
cannot be
given effect
to or
recovery
from pay to
the extent
necessary
of the
monetary
value
equivalent
to the
amount of
reduction to
a lower
stage in
a time
scale
where
such
order
cannot be
given
effect to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspector Superint- Superint Superint- Dy.Inspr. Superint- Dy.Inspr. Dy.Inspr. Dy.Inspr.
Police -endent endent endent Genl. Of endent Genl. of Genl. Of Genl.
Police Police police Concerned
concerned concerned concerned or the
Commissioner
as the case
may be
in
respect of
S.I. "" "" "" "" "" "" ""
Gr.I "" "" "" "" "" "" ""
Constable
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the petitioner raised a ground that the respondent is not a competent authority to impose the punishment, the answer of the respondents in para 10 of
their reply affidavit is as follows:
10) With regard to para 6(6)(b), it is submitted that the post of Addl. Supdt. of Police, has been created to minimize the burden of work of Supdt. of Police
and Addl. Supdt. of Police has disciplinary powers as that of Supdt. of Police. Therefore, the orders passed by the second respondent is in order.
In my considered view, the answer is not acceptable. The post of Addl. Supdt. of Police was created to minimize the burden of work of Supdt. of Police
could not confer on him powers or jurisdiction to act as the competent authority under the Rules to impose the punishments that could be imposed by Supdt. of
Police, unless the Rules are suitably amended.
It is clear that, The Additional Superintendent of police, the second respondent, is not a competent authority to impose the punishment of withholding of
increment, as per the Rule 4 read with Rule 2 and the schedule of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Hence, the
impugned order is quashed. No Costs.