INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Vs. THAVASIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) A departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, on an allegation that in January 1988, while he was working as PSI at Anthiyur Police Station, he not only did not register a criminal case against one Smt. Jayalakshmi for the offences found to have been committed by her but let her off and delivered back the seized articles after accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from her. A Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as an enquiry officer. He framed the charges and served the same on the respondent. He then held an enquiry and submitted his report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police who was competent to award the proposed penalty. The Dy. Inspector General of Police agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement by an order dated 26-3-91. The respondent filed an appeal against that order to the Inspector General of Police who dismissed it by an order dated 16-7-91.

(3.) The respondent then filed O. A. No. 4236 of 1991 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that only the authority competent to award the proposed penalty could have framed and served the charge memo and as that was done in this case by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, only that penalty could have been lawfully imposed upon the respondent which was within the powers of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. As the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not competent to award the penalty of compulsory retirement imposition of that penalty even by Deputy Inspector General of Police should be regarded as illegal. It was also contended that there was no evidence to prove the charge against the respondent. A contention was also raised that the respondent was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Tribunal did not go into the other contentions raised by the respondent and allowed his application as it was of the view that "the charge memo under Rule 3(b) should be issued by the disciplinary authority empowered to impose the penalty specified therein and if any lower authority has initiated proceedings by issuing the charge memo then the penalty will be limited to those that such lower authority can award to the delinquent concerned." As the Deputy Superintendent of Police could not have imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement, the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty and directed the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent and remitted the case back to the Deputy Inspector General of Police to pass an appropriate order. Aggreived by that order the petitions who were respondents in O. A. have filed this appeal.