IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 05.09.2011 Coram:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition No.21640 of 2004 R.Francis ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem. 3. Director General of Police, Chennai-4. ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent/Superintendent of police, Dharmapuri, passed in Proceedings C.No.M1/PR 147/91, dated23.01.2002, imposing a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect and the consequential order passed by the 1st respondent in D.O. No.30/02, C.No.M1/PR 147/91, dated 23.1.2002 and further confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his order passed in C.No.B2/1984/2002, AP 8.02 dated 10.04.2002 and further confirmed by the third respondent herein passed in his Rc. No.187998/AP II(2)/2002 dated 6.12.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to repay the petitioner the full monetary value withheld as punishment with all consequential benefits. For petitioner : Mr.Ravishanmugam for M/s.Sudha Ravi Associates. For respondents : Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai, Additional Government Pleader. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The present writ petition is directed against the order, dated 10.04.2002, passed by Respondent No.2/Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem, in and by which, the appeal preferred by the petitioner as against the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect as imposed by the first respondent/Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, vide order dated 23.01.2002, came to be rejected, and such rejection order was also endorsed by the third respondent/Director General of Police, Chennai-4, in his proceedings dated 06.12.2003. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the short order passed in Appeal by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, is bereft of any sound reasoning and it does not show as to on what basis the appellate authority accepted the order passed by the original authority. He submits that the rejection order, being a non-speaking order, is liable to be set aside and, in support of such submission, he relies upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 1382 (V.Kandasamy vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirapalli Range, Trichirapalli and another) for the proposition that the appellate authority, while disposing of the appeal, has to give sound reasoning, because, a departmental appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and further, the appeal being the last opportunity available for a delinquent to canvass his case on merits, the appellate authorities should go into the factual details, consider all the grounds of appeal before deciding an appeal and pass a proper order by way of a speaking order. By submitting that, in the present case, the impugned rejection order passed by the appellate authority does not reflect application of mind on his part, learned counsel pleads to set aside the same. 3. Opposing the above arguments, learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has given room for initiation of departmental proceedings against him under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules, 1955, for the allegation that he prepared a bogus District Order of Transfer by transferring Head Constables from various stations to Prohibition & Enforcement Wing Units with the active connivance of PC 1139 of Munisamy of Hosur Police Station and thereby, misused the official position. Though the departmental proceedings against the delinquent came to be concluded by the first Enquiry Officer on 25.04.1994 holding the charge as not proved, the Disciplinary Authority, differing with the said report of the Enquiry Officer, ordered for a de novo enquiry and the second Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, by order dated 23.12.1994, concluded that the single charge against the petitioner was proved. Consequently, the first respondent, by his proceedings dated 23.01.2002, imposed the punishment of reduction in the time scale of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pay by two stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect. When the said order was challenged before the 2nd respondent, the said authority, after considering the case of the petitioner, has passed the impugned rejection order stating that the petitioner has not raised any fresh point worthy of consideration except repeating his earlier contentions in his further representation. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to say that the appellate authority has failed to consider his case and that the impugned order was passed without application of mind. 4. The above submission made by the learned Additional Government pleader finds sufficient force in avoiding interference by this court. The reason being, the petitioner has been found guilty by the Enquiry Officer of preparing bogus District Order by transferring 8 Head Constables from various Police Stations to the Prohibition and Enforcement Unit Wings with the active connivance of PC-1139 Munusamy of Hosur Police Station. The Disciplinary Authority also, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, who acted upon the evidence of the Joint Superintendent of Police to the effect that that the petitioner alone prepared the bogus District Order in his own hand-writing and also the admission of the petitioner in that regard, to conclude against the petitioner. Therefore, when the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order based on the admission of the petitioner that the Bogus District Order in question was prepared by him in his own handwriting, the appellate authority, in the absence any new ground or plea canvassed before him, rightly rejected the appeal and such order cannot be termed to be cryptic. Further, as held in T.Venkatesh v. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. (ILR 1995 KAR 166), the obligation to give reasons and pass a proper order in Appeal would exist only in those cases where the order passed by the appellate authority is one reversing the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. On going through the order passed by the appellate authority, I am of the view that there is no ground made out at all for interference as the authority has well applied his mind to the order under challenge and rejected the appeal stating that no new ground or plea worthy of consideration was canvassed before him. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JI. To 1. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem. 3. Director General of Police, Chennai-4. 1 cc to M/s.Sudha Ravi Associates, Advocate, Sr.No.54613 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.54752 WP No.21640 of 2004. SV {CO} TP/10.10.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/