IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.NO.38121 OF 2006 (T) (O.A.No.7633 of 1998) P. Ramasamy .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Madras-4. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Enforcement, Madurai Zone - Incharge Tirunelveli Zone. ..Respondents PRAYER : Original Application No.7633 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying to call for the records of the respondent in G.O.3D 161 Home (SC) Department dated 27.11.1995 as communicated by the third respondent in O.No.01/4044/95 ZO No.67/96 dated 14.03.1996 and quash the same. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For Petitioner : Mr. Ramaprasad for Mr.Abdul Wahab For Respondents : Mr.B. Vijay, Government Advocate O R D E R Original Application No.7633 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying to call for the records of the respondent in G.O.3D 161 Home (SC) Department dated 27.11.1995 as communicated by the third respondent in O.No.01/4044/95 ZO No.67/96 dated 14.03.1996 and quash the same. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. 2.Petitioner is a Additional Superintendent of Police. He challenges the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram issued a charge memo in his proceedings PR No.1/88 issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In the enquiry, based on oral and documentary evidence, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved and the disciplinary authority concurring with the same imposed the punishment as above. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner to the first respondent on 9.3.1997, and the same has not been disposed of so far. 4.Heard Mr.B.Vijay, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the fist respondent to dispose of his appeal dated 9.3.1997. 5.Considering the limited prayer now sought for, the petitioner is permitted to pursue the remedy by way of appeal said to be pending before the first respondent. The first respondent shall consider and dispose of the appeal on merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is entitled to make further representation before the appellate authority. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar vsm To 1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Madras-4. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Enforcement Madurai Zone - Incharge Tirunelveli Zone. + 1 cc to Mr.B.Vijay,Government Advocate,SR.9433 W.P. NO.38121 of 2006 TRM(CO) EM/5.3.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/