1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:01.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN WP(MD)No.7113 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Ayyappan :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. :Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the respondents in their proceedings in PR.No.246/2008, dated 20.03.2009 issued by the third respondent proceedings in C.No.C4/AP.77/2009, dated 17.05.2009 issued by the second respondent and proceedings in R.C.No.197324/AP2(1)/09, dated 07.01.2010 issued by the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.J.Nisha Banu For Respondents: Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen,Additional Government Pleader ORDER Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3.Challenging the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 20.03.2009 and the order of the second respondent dated 17.05.2009 and also the order of the first respondent dated 07.01.2010, the present Writ Petition is laid. 4.In and by the said order dated 20.03.2009, the third respondent has inflicted the punishment on the petitioner on certain charges. The same was confirmed by the second respondent, by order dated 17.05.2009. Against which, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the first respondent, who in turn, confirmed the order passed by the second respondent, by proceeding dated 07.01.2010. The said orders are under challenge in the present Writ Petition on the ground that those orders do not disclose any reasoning to inflict such punishment on the petitioner. 5.I have gone through the orders and found that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is justified in contending that none of the authorities, viz., the first respondent or the second respondent or the third respondent have given any reasons for inflicting such punishment. 6.In order to appreciate the same, it would be useful to extract the orders that have been passed by the respondents. The operative portion of the order of the third respondent dated 20.03.2009 is usefully extracted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 hereunder: "The enquiry officer has held the charges as proved through the statements of Pws.1 to 5 and Exhibits 1 to 11 filed by them. I agree with the findings of the enquiry officer in holding the charges as proved on the strength of oral and recorded evidences. Accordingly, I award him a punishment of Reduction in pay by three stages in the time scale of pay for three years with cumulative effect." The operative portion of the order of the second respondent dated 17.05.2009 is usefully extracted hereunder: "I have gone through the appeal petition, PR file and connected records carefully. The charge against the appellant stands amply proved. The punishment awarded to the appellant is appropriate. Hence I decline to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected." The operative portion of the order of the first respondent dated 07.01.2010 is usefully extracted hereunder: "I have carefully gone through the PR file and connected records. The delinquency was amply proved. The punishment awarded is commensurate with the delinquency. The review petitioner has not put forth any fresh points for consideration. Hence, I decline to interfere with the punishment already awarded and reject the review petition." 7.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the impugned orders of the respondents dated 20.03.2009, 17.05.2009 and 07.01.2010 and accordingly, set aside and the Writ Petition, therefore, stands allowed. It is needless to say that the third respondent is at liberty to pass orders afresh, after giving reasons thereof and in such event, if the order to be passed is adverse against the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI Act) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. +1CC to M/s.J.Nisha Banu, Advocate. SR.No.21198. SML Order made in W.P.(MD)No.7113 of 2011 RP/14.07.2011/2P/5C. Dated: 01.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/