IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR W.P.No.16205 of 2006 P. Jayaraman .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Joint Commissioner of Police Armed Reserve, Chennai  8. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Armed Reserve, Chennai  8. .. Respondents Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.7513 of 1995 from the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in connection with P.R. No.19/Tha.Pi.I (1)/95 dated 19.5.95 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Madras-8 and set aside the same and pass further orders. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Ilamvaludhi For Respondents : Mr. S. Gopinathan, A.G.P O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 19.5.95 of the Joint Commissioner, Chennai imposing a penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. 2. Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows ; When the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, Chennai, for the act of desertion, he was issued with a charge memo in P.R. No. 19/Tha.pi. 1(1)/95 dated 17.2.95. The enquiry officer found that the charge of desertion as proved. On consideration of the records, the report of the enquiry officer and the defence statement of the petitioner, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Chennai , the first respondent imposed a penalty of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director General of Police, Chennai on 25.5.95. As the said appeal was not disposed of, the petitioner has chosen to file the Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been subsequently transferred and renumbered as present Writ petition. 3. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. S. Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Joint Commissioner of Police, Chennai, is not the appointing authority and therefore, not competent to impose the penalty. He further submitted that in the matter of desertion, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai has issued an instruction that disciplinary proceedings under rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 should not be initiated and therefore the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under rule 3(b) of the said rules is contrary to the administrative instructions and therefore the consequential penalty, is liable to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The charge levelled against the petitioner is continuous absence from duty without leave or permission from 12.12.1994. On the basis, of oral and documentary evidence, the enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the charge against the petitioner as proved. The Joint Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, while considering the quantum of penalty, has observed that though the charge of desertion is grave, warranting severe penalty, but has taken a lenient view and awarded a lesser punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, on his pension. 6. As regards the competency of the Joint Commissioner of Police, to impose the penalty of stoppage of increment, explanation to rule 3(b)of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, makes it clear that the disciplinary authority for the purpose of this rule shall mean, the authority competent to impose penalties referred to in rule 3(b) (i) of the said rules and any authority subordinate to him, but superior to the delinquent officer. In the case of Sub-Inspectors of Police working in City Police, as per Schedule to Tamil Nadu Police(D&A)Rules, the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned is competent to impose the penalties of withholding of increment or promotion or stoppage of increment at an efficiency bar or recovery from pay to the extent commensurate to the monetary value equivalent to the amount of increments ordered to be withheld, where such an order cannot be given effect to or recovery from pay to the extent commensurate to the monetary value equivalent to the amount of reduction to a lower stage in a time scale ordered where such an order cannot be given effect to. 7. In view of the explanation to the above said rule and schedule to the Discipline and Appeal Rules, the Joint Commissioner of Police, a superior officer is competent to inflict the penalty of stoppage of increment. Therefore, the contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly untenable. 8. As per Police Standing Orders 95, absence without leave, for 21 days is an offence of desertion, after which the officers' name shall be invariably struck off, from the rolls. If the disciplinary authority decides to hold an enquiry, charges should be framed and the procedure prescribed in Police Standing Order 80, should be followed before confirming the dismissal or reinstating the deserter with or without punishment. 9. The procedure to be followed as per Police Standing Orders 80 for imposing a penalty of removal, dismissal is laid down in rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (D&A) Rules and it reads as follows: "In every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a Service any of the penalties specified in clauses (d), (h), (i) and (j) of Rule 2 the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall b reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is framed and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case." The penalties provided in Rule 3(b) are as follows; (i)Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or a lower grade, post or timescale or to a lower stage in the same timescale. (ii) Compulsory retirement otherwise than under Article 465(2) or under Note I to Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations. (iii) Removal from the Civil Service of the State Government which disqualifies from future employment. 10. Therefore, rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Rules makes it clear that, whenever, it is proposed to impose on a member of service, a major penalty, then the charges have to be formulated and the delinquent officer should be given a reasonable opportunity to put forth his defence. The instructions issued by the Commissioner of Police cannot override the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that executive or administrative instructions can only supplement the gap in the rules and they cannot supplant or override the statutory rules. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that initiation of disciplinary proceedings under rule 3(b) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules is contrary to administrative instructions is not tenable. The disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner in confirmity with the statutory rules. In a given case, where a delinquent officer remains absent for a long time, it cannot be said that the disciplinary or appointing authority has no power to impose a major penalty against a member of a disciplined force and that minor penalty alone can be imposed by taking action under rule 3(a) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition. The procedure followed by the authorities is in accordance with statutory rules. 11. Excepting the above grounds, no other points have been urged before this Court. Since, the punishment is commensurate with the charges, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 12. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 28.08.2008 avr Index: Yes/No Website: Yes/No To 1. The Joint Commissioner of Police Armed Reserve, Chennai  8. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Armed Reserve, Chennai  8. S. MANIKUMAR J. avr W.P.No.16205 of 2006 28.08.2008