IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :17.02.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.29202 to 29204 of 2006 P.S.Vijayan ... Petitioner(in WP No. 29202 to 29204/2006) vs. 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore 2.Superintendent of Police Dharmapuri. ...Respondents ( in all the Wps.) Prayer: Writ Petition No. 29202 of 2006 came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.Nos.9280 of 1998, 6081 of 1997 and 4596 of 2000 from the file of the Tamil Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in PR.No.32/94 dated 23.04.1998 passed by the second respondent as confirmed by the first respondent in B2/AP 118/98 dated 29.08.1998 and set aside the same. Writ Petition No. 29203 of 2006 came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No. 6081 of 1997 from the file of the Tamil Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings C.No.B1.AP.86/96, dated 28.2.97 confirming the order of the second respondent in his PR No. 32/95, dated 11.10.96 and set aside the same. Writ Petition No. 29204 of 2006 came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No. 4596 of 2000 from the file of the Tamil Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings C.No.B2.AP.91/99, dated 19.7.1999 confirming the order of the second respondent in M3.PR.104/95 dated 4.5.1999 and set aside the same and confer all the consequential benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sivalingam For Respondents : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam Govt. Advocate COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of punishment of stoppage of increment and reduction in the time scale of pay passed by the first respondents in different dates. 2. The petitioner, Gr.I, Police constable, has filed O.A.6081 in 1997 challenging the order of punishment of stoppage of increment in PR No. 32/95, dated 11.10.96. OA.No. 9280 of 1998 has been filed challenging the punishment of stoppage of increment in PR No.32/94 dated 23.4. 1998 and O.A.No.4596/00 has been filed challenging the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay in respect of M3.PR.104/95 dated 4.5.1999. All the three cases relates to different charge memos for a different periods of time. In all the three cases, departmental proceedings were conducted by the competent authority and the punishment was imposed by the Superintendent of Police, who is the disciplinary authority concerned and the respective punishments were imposed. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he has filed appeals in all the three cases and are rejected. Aggrieved thereby, all the three original applications have been filed and renumbered as writ petitions. 3. On going through the ground raised in the petitions, the contention of the petitioner appears to be on the factual aspects of the case stating that the authority has not considered the deposition of witnesses in the proper manner and the same has not been properly appreciated. The disciplinary authority has gone into the report of the enquiry officer and come to the conclusion that the delinquency charged as proved and that is based on oral and documentary evidence let in by the department. The first respondent/ appellate authority has concurred with the findings on merits. This Court is not therefore inclined to go into the factual aspects of the matter to come to a different conclusion from the one that has been held by the disciplinary authority and confirmed the appellate authority. 4. In these writ petitions, no glaring infirmity in the departmental proceedings is brought to light. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to re-appreciate the evidence and held otherwise. Further, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority with regard to the delinquency charged and no ground has been made out to interfere with the punishments imposed which is appropriate in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ facts and circumstances of the case. Finding no merits, all the three writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ra To 1)The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore 2)The Superintendent of Police Dharmapuri. 1 cc To Mr.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.10851. W.P.No. 29202 TO 29204 of 2006 MG(CO) RVL 02.03.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/