IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 5.2.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.33721 of 2006 Thirumalaimuthusamy. ... Applicant -Vs.- 1.Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai-9. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli. 3.Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Original Application No.9744 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call for records in P1/5276/98/PR.117/96 Kanyakumari District dated 6.3.98 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same by issue of a Writ of Certiorari. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For petitioners : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Government Advocate. O R D E R Original Application No.9744 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call for records in P1/5276/98/PR.117/96 Kanyakumari District dated 6.3.98 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same by issue of a Writ of Certiorari. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner/applicant Grade-I Police Constable was charged as follows:- "2) The charge is for three counts, as detailed below:- (i) Having abused higher officer who instructed the delinquent to go as second driver. (ii) Absented for duty from 2.5.89 to 9.5.89 and (iii) Attempted to cause injury on R.S.I. Tr.N.P.Vijayakumar by dashing the vehicle on 14.5.89 Night." Oral enquiry was conducted, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined. Exs.P-1 to P-16 were marked. The enquiry officer held that the charges were proved. Based on the same, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the following punishment :- "the delinquent is awarded the punishment of increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect. Its effect on pension, if any, is considered and intended." Challenging the said punishment, the Original Application has been filed. In terms of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955 the punishment has been imposed by the third respondent Superintendent of Police. An appeal lies to the Deputy Inspector General of Police in terms of Rule 6 of the said rules. 3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily on the facts of the case in which so many witnesses and documents have been marked and therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the factual aspect of the case for deciding the issue. Since there is an appeal remedy, the petitioner can file an appeal and canvass the matter on merits. Such appeal as and when filed should be disposed off by the appellate authority on merits. Since the Original Application has been filed in the year 1998 challenging the order dated 6.3.1998, the petitioner will not be non-suited on the ground of limitation as the matter has been pending before this Court. The appeal if filed on or before 31.3.2010, the concerned authority shall dispose off the appeal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ within three months thereafter, if no appeal is filed the petitioner to suffer the consequence of the punishment order. The Writ Petition is disposed off in the above terms. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. ts To 1.Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai-9. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli. 3.Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 7763 W.P.No.33721 of 2006 KJI (CO) kk 3/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/