Allowed

M.Krishnan v. the Dy Inspector Genl of Polic

Madras HC12 Mar 2014WP/7608/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a police department order reducing the petitioner's rank by one year. The High Court held the punishment too harsh for the negligence alleged and modified it to stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect.

What did the court decide?

Punishment of reduction in rank modified to stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect.

M.Krishnan Vs the Dy Inspector Genl of Polic — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.03.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶5

W.P.No.7608 of 2007 (OA.No.3670 of 2002)

¶6

M.Krishnan .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Salem Range, Salem .. Respondent
Prayer :Writ Petition, having been transferred from the file of the
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3670 of 2002, is filed
to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the
respondent in connection with the impugned order issued
RC.No.1093/B1/02 PR.11/B1/02 dated 21.05.2002 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani, SC
for M.Muthappan
For Respondent : M/s.S.Navaneetham, AGP
O R D E R

¶8

The only point to be considered herein is as to whether the punishment of reduction in rank from the Inspector of Police to Sub Inspector of Police for one year to be spent on duty is proportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner.

¶9

The charges proved against the petitioner is that the petitioner while he was working as Station House Officer at A.K.Chatram P.S. Nagapttinam, failed to open GD for the period from 16.08.1998 to 16.09.1998 and by allowing his subordinate officers to open the GD, thereby acted negligently in discharge of his essential duties, as such he was imposed punishment of reversal in rank.

¶10

3.This Court considering the nature of the charges proved against the petitioner and the period of service rendered by the petitioner and other aspects, is of the view that the punishment

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

imposed on the petitioner is too harsh and the same can be modified as one that of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is ordered by modifying the punishment imposed on the petitioner to one that of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. No costs.

¶14

Sd/-

¶15

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
Dated : 17.04.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsh
To
The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Salem Range, Salem
2 CCs to M/s. M.Muthappan, Advocate, S.R.No.12305, 12306
1 CC to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.12265
WP.No.7608 of 2007
RSI (CO)
PSI (21/04/2014)

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Krishnan v. the Dy Inspector Genl of Polic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Krishnan v. the Dy Inspector Genl of Polic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Arunagiri Vs the Dist. Adhi Dravidar and

G.Rajagopal Vs Subha Shree Finance Corporatio

P.Shanmugam @ Shanmuga Vs State, Rep.by the Inspector of

V.S.Amirthalal Vs the State of Tamilandu

Palani Vs K.Ganesan

M.Ravichandran Vs the Director of