Disposed

S.Chakkaravarthy, v. The Deputy Inspector General

Madras HC3 Jun 2024WP/29660/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Special Sub-Inspector challenged disciplinary punishment of postponement of increment for allegedly accepting a bribe at a toll gate. The enquiry officer had exonerated him, but the disciplinary authority disagreed and punished him; appeal was rejected. The High Court modified the punishment to postponement of increment without cumulative effect.

What did the court decide?

Punishment modified to postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect; no costs.

S.Chakkaravarthy, Vs The Deputy Inspector General — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.29660 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

W.P.No.29660 of 2016

S. Chakkaravarthy

...Petitioner

vs.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range,

¶11

Salem.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, O/o The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, filed mandamus calling for the records comprised in Na.Ka.No.H1/P.R.64/2015, dated 14.12.2015 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and the consequential order made in R.C.No.B2/40/740/2016 Appeal No.22/2016, dated 18.02.2016 on the file of the 1^st respondent and to quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharanidharan

¶15

For Respondents : Ms.C.Sangamithirai Special Government Pleader

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Page No.1/8

¶18

W.P.No.29660 of 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The writ petitioner who was working as a Special Sub-Inspector of Police in Dharmapuri District seeks to challenge the order made in Na.Ka.No.H1/P.R.64/2015, dated 14.12.2015 on the file of the second respondent and the consequential order made in R.C.No.B2/40/740/2016 Appeal No.22/2016, dated 18.02.2016 on the file of the first respondent rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner therein.

¶21

The petitioner submits that he joined the Police Department as a constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police V Battalion, Avadi, Chennai on 15.04.1986. He was promoted as Head Constable on 15.04.2010. On completion of 10 year period, he should have been considered for promotion as Special Sub-Inspector. However, during the year 2010-2011, the petitioner was awarded with three minor punishments: postponement of increment for one year in P.R.No.22 of 2010 on 08.06.2010, P.R.No.27/2010 on 08.06.2010 and P.R.No.26/2011. The said punishments were completed on 30.06.2013 and thereafter, the petitioner was to be promoted as Special Sub-Inspector of Police.

¶22

Page No.2/8

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.29660 of 2016

¶25

The petitioner further submits that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and other service personnel in P.R.No.64 of 2015 alleging that the petitioner while working as Head Constable in Thoppur Police Station, Dharmapuri District, he along with other police personnel who were on duty on 23.02.2015 and 24.02.2015 at Thoppur Toll Gate, had accepted a bribe of Rs.200/- at midnight from one Azhagesan who was transporting goats in a lorry. Charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was issued to the petitioner on 27.04.2015. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer by a report dated 04.11.2015 had found that the petitioner was not guilty of the charge framed against him. But the disciplinary authority namely the second respondent on 17.11.2015 issued a second show cause notice by rejecting the report of the enquiry officer dated 04.11.2015 by holding that the petitioner was on duty at the Highway Patrol on 24.02.2015 and thus the second respondent held that the charges were proved and called for further explanation from the petitioner besides issuance of dissenting note.

¶26

The petitioner further submits that the second respondent by

¶27

order dated 14.12.2015 straightaway rejected the explanation submitted

¶28

Page No.3/8

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.29660 of 2016

¶31

by him and inflicted the punishment of postponement of increment for one year, and it was served on him on 25.12.2015. The appeal preferred before the first respondent was rejected on the basis that it was the petitioner who was on duty at Highway Patrol on 24.02.2015 and that the Disciplinary Authority was correct in awarding punishment for spoiling the name of the Police Department.

¶32

Heard Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.Sangamithirai, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶33

The charge framed under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 in P.R.No.64 of 2015 dated 14.12.2015 was extracted hereunder:-

¶34

“23-24/02/2015 k; njjp beL”;rhiy nuhe;J thfdk;

¶35

53y; rpwg;g[ fhty; cjtp Ma;thsh; (j/fh/1492) jpU/nf/rpd;drhkp kw;Wk; fh/210 Fkhh; MfpnahUld; bjhg;g{h; nlhy; nfl; mUfpy; gzpapy; ,Ue;j ePu; mg;nghJ mt;tHpahf fh;ehlfh khepyj;jpypUe;J tsh;g;g[ MLfis tpw;gidf;fhf nryk; re;ijf;F jpU/mHnfrd; j-bg nfhtpe;jft[z;lh; vd;gth; TN 49 K 2339 vd;w jdJ 909 bgd;!; yhhpapy; Vw;wp te;jnghJ mthplk; U:/200-?

¶36

Page No.4/8

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.29660 of 2016

¶39

y”;rkhf nfl;L bgw;w ckJ bray; fz;of;fj;jf;f xG';fPdr; bray;/”

¶40

Though the enquiry officer gave a finding that the charge was not

¶41

proved, on issuance of a dissenting note to the delinquent/petitioner herein, the appointing authority based on the testimony of Witness Nos.7 and 8 and Government Exhibit Nos.9 and 10 held that the charge is proved. After calling for the explanation from the delinquent, the postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect was ordered.

¶42

On an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem, the same was rejected by accepting the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District.

¶43

It appears that the complainant retracted from his statement during the oral enquiry but the Superintendent of Police of Dharmapuri by relying upon the testimony of Government Witness Nos.7 and 8 and Government Document Nos.9 and 10 that the delinquent was on duty on 24.02.2015 on Highway Patrol and imposed punishment as mentioned supra, which was confirmed in the appeal before the Deputy Inspector

¶44

Page No.5/8

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.29660 of 2016

¶47

General of Police, Salem Range, Salem.

¶48

The delinquency has been confirmed through the statements of prosecution witness Nos.7 and 8 coupled with Government Document Nos.9 and 10 stating that the punishment awarded is suitable punishment. Considering the charge details, the punishment awarded is changed into postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

¶49

Based on the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶50

03.06.2024

¶51

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No mac

¶52

Page No.6/8

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.No.29660 of 2016

¶55

¶56

The Deputy Inspector General of Police,

¶57

Salem Range,

¶58

Salem.

¶59

The Superintendent of Police,

¶60

O/o The Superintendent of Police,

¶61

Dharmapuri.

¶62

Page No.7/8

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.P.No.29660 of 2016

¶65

R.KALAIMATHI, J. mac

¶66

W.P.No.29660 of 2016

¶67

03.06.2024

¶68

Page No.8/8

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Chakkaravarthy, v. The Deputy Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chakkaravarthy, v. The Deputy Inspector General

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

M.Udayasooriyan Vs The Additional Director

Thiraviyam Vs The Principal Secretary

N.Vadivel Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

S.Kokilaani Vs the District Collector

K.Vijayalakshmi, Vs The Chairman

P.Banu Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu