IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21/02/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
W.P.NO.27497 OF 2005
K. Swaminathan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home (Police 3) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009. ... Respondent
This writ petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.3437 of
1998 from the file of Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal praying for the relief
as stated therein.
!For Petitioner - Mr. A.S. Kaizer
^For Respondent - Mrs. D. Malarvizhi,
Government Advocate
:O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of punishment
imposed on the petitioner in G.O.Ms.No.339 Home (Police 12) Department dated
23.03.1998, in which the petitioner was imposed a punishment of withholding of
increment for one year with cumulative effect and also the recovery of
Rs.7,496.40 towards loss to the department.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
petitioner retired on 31.12.1998 and his annual increment is due as on
1.1.1999 . Therefore according to the petitioner, the said order of
punishment imposed on the petitioner for the charges under Section 17(b) is
unworkable and the said punishment is imposed without application of mind.
3. The first contention of the petitioner is that two preliminary
enquiries have been conducted by the Superintendent of Police for the very
same set of allegations and on both the occasions, nothing was found against
the petitioner and recommended to refer the complaints as mistake of fact.
In so far as the second contention is concerned, I am unable to
sustain the arguments because the preliminary enquiry is a fact binding
enquiry and if the preliminary enquiry report is not convincing to the
department, it is open to the department to conduct a regular enquiry.
4. It is admitted that in this case when regular charges are
framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b), an enquiry was conducted. In
so far as the first contention is concerned, the punishment of withholding of
increment for one year with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner is
unworkable. As stated earlier, the petitioner retired on 31.12.1998 and
the next annual increment was due only on 01.01.1999. Therefore, the order of
punishment of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect
imposed on the petitioner is unworkable.
5. In the impugned order, the amount of Rs.7,496.40 is ordered to
be recovered from the petitioner towards the loss sustained by the department.
Since the charges are proved and the loss sustained by the department is also
proved, there is no illegality in ordering recovery of the said amount. In
view of the above finding, the impugned order is set aside in so far as the
order of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect alone is
concerned. In other respects, the impugned order is sustained and the said
amount of recovery can be adjusted from the petitioner’s Death cum Retirement
Gratuity (DCRG) and all the retirement benefits shall be paid to the
petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.1092 of 2006 is closed.
abe
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
To
The Secretary,
State of Tamilnadu,
Home (Police 3) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.