IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 4.2.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.37419 of 2006 K.MADHANAGOPAL .. PETITIONER Vs 1 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE VILLLUPURAM RANGE VILLUPURAM. 2 THE SUPERINTEDNDENT OF POLICE CUDDALORE. 3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDDENT OF POLICE VIRIDHACHALAM. .. RESPONDENTS Prayer: Original Application No.9447 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records relating to the award of BLACK MARK ordered by the Superintendent of police Cuddalore in his order H2/P.R/155/97 dated 20/10/97 and by the DIG of police Villupuram range in his Proc C.No.B3/Appeal-80/97 dated 24/1/98 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 : Ms. Praveena For respondents : Mr. B. Vijay, Government Advocate. O R D E R Original Application No.9447 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records relating to the award of BLACK MARK ordered by the Superintendent of police Cuddalore in his order H2/P.R/155/97 dated 20/10/97 and by the DIG of police Villupuram range in his Proc C.No.B3/Appeal-80/97 dated 24/1/98 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. The applicant/petitioner, the Grade-I Police Constable Tittagudi Police Station, aged about 46 years filed the Oriental Application in the year 1998 challenging the punishment awarded by the second respondent Superintendent of Police and the order reads as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "F.ORDER: I have carefully gone through the charges, the facts, evidence, the defence and the findings of the minute drawing Officer. The delinquent is not recording the statement of injured, he later died of the injuries. It is a grave dereliction and the minute drawing Officer has held the charge as proved. Hence I agree with the minute drawing officer and award a Black Mark." 3. He filed an appeal to the first respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, who considered the matter on merits and dismissed the appeal. The Review should have been filed in terms of Rule 15 A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1955. No review has been filed. That apart, the punishment imposed, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is a minor and the authorities have gone into details of the charges and come to conclusion on merits with regard to the delinquency and imposed the punishment of "Black Mark". 4. It is stated by the learned Government Advocate that the award of the "Black Mark" is far less a punishment than "censure" and is of no consequence to petitioner's service. 5. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to go into the factual aspects in detail to differ with the findings of the competent authorities. The grounds raised in the Original Application, are purely factual aspects of the case and no legal infirmity has been pointed out. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the authorities. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy / Sub Asst.Registrar amuda/ts To 1 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE VILLLUPURAM RANGE, VILLUPURAM. 2 THE SUPERINTEDNDENT OF POLICE, CUDDALORE. 3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDDENT OF POLICE, VIRIDHACHALAM. + 1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.7392 Writ Petition No.37419 of 2006 VSV(CO) EM/23.2.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/