IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :16.02.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W. P. No.42752 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.621 of 1999 V.Gangappan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Superintendent Of Police Cuddalore District. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Villupuram. 3.The Director General of Police Chennai – 2. ...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.621 of 1999 from the file of the Tamil Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondents in connections with the order passed in PR.No.123/94 dated 13.08.1996, C.No.B2/AP13/97 dated 10.03.1997and RC.No.77324/AP I (2)/ 98 dated 14.07.1998, by the first , second and third respondents respectively and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Counsel Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay, Govt. Advocate O R D E R This writ petition is filed to call for the records of the respondents in connections with the order passed in PR.No.123/94 dated 13.08.1996, C.No.B2/AP13/97 dated 10.03.1997and RC.No.77324/AP I (2)/ 98 dated 14.07.1998, by the first , second and third respondents respectively and quash the same. 2. The sub Inspector of Police, has filed the original application challenging the order of censure. The delinquency charged was that while he was working as Sub Inspector of Police (Law and order) in Cuddalore District from 14.10.1992 to 9.7.93, he was disposing the petition summarily and that in the police station, under his control, large number of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitions were received and kept without being entered in the register. The petitioner did not take due care and caution and control the writer of the police station and failed in discharging duties as the officer incharge of the police station. Enquiry was conducted and the charges were found proved and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of censure. The appeal and Review have also been dismissed on merits. Therefore, the said order of censure is under challenge in the original application. 3. Reply affidavit has been filed. Mr. Vijay, learned Government Advocate reiterated the stand taken by the department stating that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner by following the principles of natural justice and this Court need not re-appreciate the evidence. In this case, several witnesses were examined, documents were marked and the enquiry officer found that the delinquency has been proved. On the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of censure. 4. Considering the nature of delinquency, the finding of the disciplinary authority on merits and the punishment imposed is justified. The Appellate Authority and the Review Authority have rightly confirmed the same. Hence, this Court is not inclined to go into the matter afresh on the factual aspects of the case. This Court does not find any material relevant to differ with the finding of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate Authority on merits. Finding no merits, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ra To 1)The Superintendent Of Police Cuddalore District. 2)The Deputy Inspector General of Police Villupuram. 3)The Director General of Police Chennai – 2. + 1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.10947 W. P. No.42752 of 2006 KSJ(CO) EM/4.3.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/