IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:22.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.44772 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.2203 of 2000 G.Navaneetha Krishnan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirkali. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District. 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tanjore Range, Tanjore. 4.The Inspector General of Police (L&O), Chennai – 4. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.2203 of 2000 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the orders passed in PR No.32/96, dated 08.12.96 and C No.41/Appeal/D1/97, dated 30.07.97 and quash the same and grant him such other further relief. For Petitioner :Mr.B.K.Srinivasan for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents :Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP ORDER The petitioner suffered a punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect, passed by the 2nd respondent, which was later on confirmed by the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner, after entering service as Grade-I Police Constable on 01.02.72, served for about 7 years with devotion and without giving any room for complaint. On seeing his performance, he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1979. Again, he was further promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1984 and his services as Sub-Inspector of Police also were regularised from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 07.08.92. In the meanwhile, he claimed to have received 135 rewards for his unblemished service. While he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Pudupattinam Police Station, he had checked the SBML gun licence of Ramalingam of Pannakaran Kottam for the second half of 1994 and first half of 1995, on 17.11.94. The licence holder was found insane and his whereabouts were not known. However, when the necessary GD entries were made on 17.11.84 by the petitioner, it was found that the licence expired on 31.12.93. Therefore, the petitioner initiated action to get the unlicenced gun and after securing it, sent the same to Armed Reserve for deposit. But, the petitioner's predecessor have not taken any action to recover the unlicenced gun. Whileso, in respect of the gun licence of Ramalingam of the same village, it was found that the said licence expired on 04.01.93 and the petitioner's predecessor also had not initiated any action. However, during the course of inspection, the gun was found out and deposited the same. In respect of weapon of Subramanian of Madaram Village, it was found that there was no such person holding SBML gun licence. But, according to the Police Standing Orders 333 Vol.I, the gun license should be checked by the station house officer once in a 6 months in 1st and 3rd quarters only, whereas, here the petitioner joined Pudupattinam Police Station only on 30.10.94, i.e., in 4th quarter of 1994. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Range conducted the inspection of the Pudupattinam Police Station on 01.06.95 and in the inspection note, it was mentioned that the gun licence register is not maintained properly for the last 3 years and directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to check out the list of officers, who are holding the charge of the station and to find out, who failed to check the weapons during the 1st and 3rd quarters. In that view of the matter, a charge memo under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to give his explanation. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation, but the same was not considered, as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was barred by limitation. Subsequently, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent disagreeing with the contention of the petitioner, rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in response to the show cause notice issued under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation denying all the charges. Though the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 08.07.96, the disciplinary authority failed to consider his reply and passed the impugned order, as if the petitioner had no reply to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ charge memo. The 2nd respondent, after considering the findings of the enquiry officer, imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect, though the petitioner discharged his duty rightly. However, when the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent also rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground of delay. In that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner was neither considered by the 2nd respondent nor by the 3rd respondent, though he has discharged his duty rightly. On that basis, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner, after receipt of the charge memo issued under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, calling upon to submit his explanation, sought for time to submit his explanation. Though the petitioner was granted extension of time to submit his explanation, he has not chose to submit his explanation within the time granted to him. Therefore, the disciplinary authority, while considering the minutes of the enquiry officer, proceeded as though the petitioner had not submitted his explanation. The petitioner, after imposition of the impugned order, should have preferred an appeal within 30 days as per Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. But, the same was also not done, hence, the appeal petition was rejected, as it was barred by limitation. The petitioner never presented his case either before the disciplinary authority or before the appellate authority. However, he was not imposed with a major punishment, since the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect, being a minor, this Court need not interfere with the impugned order. On that basis, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. No doubt, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, calling upon him to submit his explanation for the charge of “gross neglect of duty in not checking the gun licences for the period of 1994 and 1995”. The petitioner, on receipt of the charge memo, took 20 days time as granted by the enquiry officer, to submit his explanation. Even after the extension of time limit was granted, the petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the charge memo issued against the petitioner. After expiry of the time limit, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 08.07.96. But, in the meanwhile, the minutes were already submitted before the disciplinary authority for suitable order. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disciplinary authority, having seen the findings of the enquiry officer as well as the time taken by the petitioner for submitting his explanation, imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect, by ignoring the belated explanation offered by the petitioner. Again, the petitioner miserably failed to prefer an appeal before the 3rd respondent, who is the appellate authority, within 30 days as per Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Therefore, the appellate authority also rejected his case on the ground that the petitioner failed to prefer his appeal within the time limit. The petitioner was neither diligent in filing his explanation before the enquiry officer nor filed his appeal within the time limit. Having failed to avail his opportunities, he cannot have any grievance before this Court. 7. In that view of the matter, since the punishment imposed against the petitioner is being not excessive, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed against the petitioner, as has been been repeatedly held by this Court as well as Apex Court in a Catena of cases that the Courts, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, shall not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the same is shown to be arbitrary or perverse or is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. No Costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rkm To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirkali. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tanjore Range, Tanjore. 4.The Inspector General of Police (L&O), Chennai – 4. +1cc to Mr.T.Ayngaraprabhu, Advocate Sr 53428 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 53534 VSV(CO) km/2.9. W.P.No.44772/2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/