IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 11.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.2147 of 2007 S.CHITHRA DEVI ..PETITIONER Vs 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHENNAI 4. 2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VELLORE RANGE, VELLORE. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, DHARMAPURI. ..RESPONDENTS Original Application No.5543 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to quash the punishment of stoppage of next increment for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect passed by the third respondent in his P.R.No.179/96 dated 24.4.98 and the consequential appeal rejected order passed by the second respondent in his C.No.B2.AP.99/98 dated 28.11.1998 and the further consequential review rejected order passed by the first respondent in his RC.No.122580/AP.2(2)/99 dated 5.7.99 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Government Advocate O R D E R Original Application No.5543 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to quash the punishment of stoppage of next increment for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect passed by the third respondent in his P.R.No.179/96 dated 24.4.98 and the consequential appeal rejected order passed by the second respondent in his C.No.B2.AP.99/98 dated 28.11.1998 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the further consequential review rejected order passed by the first respondent in his RC.No.122580/AP.2(2)/99 dated 5.7.99 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner/applicant, the Sub Inspector of Police suffered punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner in P.R.179/96 on the allegation that she demanded bribe from three persons by name M/s.Karunanidhi, Sadanandham and Raja. Oral enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer held that the charge Nos.1 and 3 were not proved and the charge No.2 alone proved. It is stated that in the enquiry proceedings, 6 witnesses were examined and 8 documents were marked on behalf of the Department. The Disciplinary Authority, the third respondent Superintendent of Police based on the oral and documentary evidence on record came to conclusion that all the three charges were proved. For disagreeing with the enquiry officer's report, much reliance has been placed by the Disciplinary Authority on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 who clearly stated about the delinquency charge. He imposed the punishment as above. The appeal filed to the second respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police has been dismissed confirming the punishment. The Review to the first respondent Director General of Police was also dismissed. All the three authorities have considered the charges framed against the petitioner on merits and have come to conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of delinquency charges and the finding of the Disciplinary Authority is based on the oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings stating that the authorities have misconceived the oral and documentary evidence on record and, therefore, wanted to canvass the petition on the factual aspects of the case. Three departmental authorities have gone into the factual aspects of the charge and held the petitioner as guilty. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to go into the factual aspects of the case once again to come to a different conclusion from that of the Disciplinary Authority which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority. No plea has been advanced stating that there is infirmity in the disciplinary proceeding. There is no violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Finding no merit, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHENNAI 4. 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VELLORE RANGE, VELLORE. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, DHARMAPURI. + 1 c.c. to Mr. S. Ravi, Advocate. S.R.No.9280. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.9430. W.P.No.2147 of 2007 VSV (CO) GSK 26.02.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/