IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.NO.42317 OF 2006 J. Abdul Kareem Head Constable 246, D2 Chengalpet Taluk P.S. Chengalpet. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai 4. 2.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu range, Chennai 18. 3.Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Kancheepuram. .. Respondents PRAYER : Original Application No.103 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying to quash the punishment of reduction in pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect passed by the third respondent herein in his proceedings No.J2/PR.193/96 dated 27.01.98 and the consequential order of the second respondent herein passed in his C.No.A3/AP/18/98 dated 5.4.98 and the further consequential order of the first respondent herein in his Rc.No.AP.I(2)/99527/98 dated 26.6.98 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.Ilanchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugam Government Advocate O R D E R
This writ petition is filed challenging the punishment of reduction in pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect passed by the third respondent. The petitioner was issued the charge memo in P.R.19396 for an allegation that he has threatened the boot-leggers and demanded illegal gratification. The charge memo was issued under Rule 3(b) the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955. Reply was submitted, witnesses were examined, documents were marked and the enquiry officers came to the conclusion that the charges were not proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority as to why a punishment should not be imposed differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
2.The disciplinary authority held that the delinquency charge was proved and imposed the punishment as above. Aggrieved by the punishment, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police the second respondent who, rejected the appeal and the further review petition filed, was also rejected by the Inspector General of Police. Challenging the same the original application has been filed in the year 1999 and renumbered as writ petition.
3.In the original application the primary contention raised is on the factual aspects of the case that the charge is vague and without material particulars. Statements have been recorded behind the back of the petitioner.
4.The disciplinary authority, however, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the delinquency charged for reason stated in the impugned proceedings. The appellate authority and the revisional authority have confirmed the finding on guilt and the punishment imposed.
5.This Court is not inclined to go into the factual aspects of the case on merits to come to a different conclusion from the one arrived by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. In the grounds raised in the writ petition no serious illegality or infirmity has been alleged in the departmental proceedings. The challenge is on factual aspects of the case.
6.This Court is not inclined to reappreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion from the findings of the disciplinary authority. There is no serious infirmity in the departmental proceedings.
7.In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
vsm
To
1.The Inspector General of Police,
Law and Order, Chennai 4.
2.Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Chengalpattu range, Chennai 18.
3.Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Kancheepuram