IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.09.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.43964 OF 2006 (O.A.NO.3915 OF 2000) M.I.Arulanandu ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur. 2.The Superintendent of Police Thanjavur. ... Respondents PRAYER: This writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.3915 of 2000 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st respondent passed in proceedings C.No.D2/AP-96/DIG-TAN/99, dated 01.12.1999 and the orders of the 2nd respondent passed in D.O.No.872/99 in P.R.No.113/K2/99, dated 09.06.1999 and set aside the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathiravan For Respondents : Ms.C.Devi Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner was working as "R" Section Superintendent in District Police Office, Thanjavur. He had put in 34 years of service. The Personal Assistant (Administration) to Superintendent of Police had sent a note to the petitioner asking for the whereabouts of the R1 Assistant Thiru E.Nagarajan. The petitioner replied in writing that R1 Assistant Thiru.E.Nagarajan was permitted to go to Collector's office after making entries in the movement register at 11.00 hours on 06.03.1998. On perusing the movement register, the Personal Assistant (Administration) to the Superintendent of Police found that Thiru. E.Nagarjan had gone to Devaram Nagar and not to the Collectorate. Hence, the petitioner was issued with a warning memo on 09.03.1998 for his contradictory information. But the petitioner rebutted and reiterated his stand that Thiru E.Nagarajan had gone to Collectorate as per the entry in the movement register. 2.In these circumstances, a charge memo dated 16.04.1999 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued to the petitioner. He was asked to submit his explanation within 15 days. The petitioner received the charge memo only on 29.04.1999 and submitted his explanation on 20.05.1999. However, before submitting his explanation, the minutes dated 18.05.1999 was drawn by the Personal Assistant to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur holding that the charge was proved. Based on the minutes, the second respondent passed the order dated 09.06.1999 imposing the punishment of postponement of increment for two years, without cumulative effect. 3.The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 04.08.1999 before the first respondent and the same was rejected on 01.12.1999 on the ground that he did not put forth any fresh ground other than the one, which he has stated in the explanation offered previously. 4.The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.3915 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the order dated 09.06.1999 of the second respondent and the order dated 01.12.1999 of the first respondent. The respondents filed reply affidavit. 5.On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.43964/2006. 6.Heard Mr.V.Kathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.Devi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 7.The petitioner was working as "R" Section Superintendent in District Police Office, Thanjavur on 06.03.1998. According to the petitioner, he permitted one Assistant Thiru E.Nagarajan to go to Collectorate. The same was entered in the movement register. The Personal Assistant to the Superintendent of Police enquired about the whereabouts of Thiru E.Nagarajan from the petitioner. The petitioner informed that he went to the Collectorate. But the warning memo dated 09.03.1998 was issued to the petitioner that he furnished incorrect information as Thiru E.Nagarajan went to Devaram Nagar as per the movement register. The petitioner reiterated his stand that as per the movement register, he went only to the Collector's office and later, the same was altered in the movement register. Even thereafter, another warning memo dated 06.02.1999 was issued by the second respondent to the petitioner for giving contradictory information. 8.Having issued two warning memos dated 09.03.1998 and 06.02.1999, it is not known as to why the second respondent issued the charge memo dated 16.04.1999 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. From the reading of the charge memo, it is seen that the second respondent enquired Thiru.E.Nagarajan and Thiru.E.Nagarajan informed that he had gone to Devaram Nagar. The details of enquiry of Thiru E.Nagarajan behind the back of the petitioner was not furnished to the petitioner. But the same was relied on for making allegations in the show cause notice. 9.As stated above, the charge memo was received by the petitioner only on 29.04.1999 and he was asked to submit his explanation within 15 days. He submitted his explanation on 20.05.1999 explaining that as per the movement register, initially it was only recorded that Thiru E.Nagarajan went to Collector's office and subsequently the same has been altered. Of course, he submitted explanation after 15 days. But before submitting his explanation, the Personal Assistant to the Superintendent of Police recorded a minute that the charge was established. However, when the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 09.06.1999, the explanation of the petitioner was very much available. But the second respondent failed to look into the explanation. Hence, the impugned order is bad for the said reason also. 10.Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal to the first respondent and the first respondent rejected the appeal in a cryptic order. No reason was given for rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner except stating that he repeated his stand as contained in his explanation. The first respondent failed to see that the second respondent did not take into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 11.As already stated above, the alleged statement of Thiru E.Nagarajan in the enquiry said to have been conducted was relied on by the authorities to come to the conclusion. The petitioner could not be blamed for corrections in the movement register as it was recorded earlier earlier that Thiru E.Nagarajan went to the Collector's office and later the same was altered. Furthermore, warning memos dated 09.03.1998 and 06.02.1999 were issued. 12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the disciplinary proceeding itself was not warranted, after issuing warning memos twice. It seems that since the petitioner reiterated even after the warning memo dated 09.03.1998 that Thiru E.Nagarajan sought permission only to go to Collectorate that was not liked by the Personal Assistant to the Superintendent of Police as well as the second respondent. That could not be the reason for initiating proceeding under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 13.In the circumstances of the case and more particularly, reliance on the statement of Thiru E.Nagarajan that was collected behind the back of the petitioner, the impugned order is bad and illegal and the same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. 22.09.2010 Index : Yes Internet : Yes To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur. 2.The Superintendent of Police Thanjavur. D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J. TK W.P.NO.43964 OF 2006 (O.A.NO.3915 OF 2000) 22.09.2010