IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24-3-2009 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.42797 of 2006(T) (OA.No.4067 of 1999) K. Baskaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Director General of Police, Chennai - 4. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai - 4. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (SR) Enforcement, Chennai - 5. ... Respondents Prayer: This writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of Constitution of India, by transfer of O.A.No.4067 of 1999 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to quash the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect passed by the third respondent in his PR.127/94 dated 16.3.1996 and the consequential order of modified punishment of postponement of increment for six months without cumulative effect passed by the second respondent in his Rc.No.21021/AP.II(2)/97, dated 13.7.1997 and the further consequential order of the first respondent in his Rc.No.251536/AP.2(2)/98, dated 8.12.1998 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian, Addl.Government Pleader O R D E R The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect passed by the third respondent in his proceeding https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 16.3.1996 and the consequential order of modified punishment of postponement of increment for six months without cumulative effect passed by the second respondent by his order dated 13.7.1997, confirmed in review by the first respondent by order dated 8.12.1998 and pay all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. The petitioner joined the Police Service as Sub- Inspector of Police on 2.11.1979 and promoted as Inspector of Police on 1.11.1993. On 12.9.1994, a charge memo was issued in PR.No.127/94 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range. The charges framed against the petitioner was as follows: "(1) Gross dereliction of duty in failure to register a case u/s.336 and 427 IPC on the complaint of one Dhamodaran of Bandarapalli and taking lenient action against accused Thirupathi @ Pattesan and Mohan by registering cases against them in Natrampalli P.S. Cr.No.650 and 651/93 u/s.41(1) Cr.P.C. instead of u/s.336 and 427 IPC and allowing the S.I. to arrest the accused Ramalingam and Munirathinam in Natrampalli P.S. Cr.No.648/93 u/s.379 IPC. (2) Gross dereliction of duty in failure to interrogate the accused persons Thirupathi @ Pattesan, S/o.Somaiyan @ Chinnathambi (2) Ramalingam, S/o.Lingam @ Mallanooran, (3) Mohan, S/o.Devan @ Devaraj and (4) Munirathinam @ Samannan, S/o.Munusamy on 28.12.93 when they were produced before the delinquent." The said charges were framed under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. 3. The Enquiry Officer held that both the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and having regard to the nature of the charges, imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Petitioner filed appeal before the Inspector General of Police and by order dated 13.7.1997, the said punishment was modified by taking a lenient view and imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for six months without cumulative effect. The review filed by the petitioner against that order of punishment was rejected by order dated 8.12.1998. 4. The charges having been framed under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules and the same having been found proved in the enquiry conducted by strictly adhering the procedures contemplated, it is the discretion of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Disciplinary Authority to impose the punishment. Ordinarily the Courts will not interfere in such order of punishment, unless procedural lapses are pointed out in the decision making process. 5. Here in this case, the appellate authority has taken a lenient view by modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that there is no procedural violation in the conduct of enquiry. In view of such undisputed facts, the punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot be interfered with. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Vr Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Director General of Police, Chennai – 4. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai – 4. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (SR) Enforcement, Chennai – 5. + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.9713 GR(CO) SR/8.4.2009 W.P.No.42797 of 2006(T) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/