G NAVANEETHA KRISHNAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner suffered a punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect, passed by the 2nd respondent, which was later on confirmed by the 3rd respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner, after entering service as Grade-I Police Constable on 01.02.72, served for about 7 years with devotion and without giving any room for complaint. On seeing his performance, he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1979. Again, he was further promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1984 and his services as Sub-Inspector of Police also were regularised from 07.08.92. In the meanwhile, he claimed to have received 135 rewards for his unblemished service. While he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Pudupattinam Police Station, he had checked the SBML gun licence of Ramalingam of Pannakaran Kottam for the second half of 1994 and first half of 1995, on 17.11.94. THE licence holder was found insane and his whereabouts were not known. However, when the necessary GD entries were made on 17.11.84 by the petitioner, it was found that the licence expired on 31.12.93. THErefore, the petitioner initiated action to get the unlicenced gun and after securing it, sent the same to Armed Reserve for deposit. But, the petitioner's predecessor have not taken any action to recover the unlicenced gun. Whileso, in respect of the gun licence of Ramalingam of the same village, it was found that the said licence expired on 04.01.93 and the petitioner's predecessor also had not initiated any action. However, during the course of inspection, the gun was found out and deposited the same. In respect of weapon of Subramanian of Madaram Village, it was found that there was no such person holding SBML gun licence. But, according to the Police Standing Orders 333 Vol.I, the gun license should be checked by the station house officer once in a 6 months in 1st and 3rd quarters only, whereas, here the petitioner joined Pudupattinam Police Station only on 30.10.94, i.e., in 4th quarter of 1994. THEreafter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Range conducted the inspection of the Pudupattinam Police Station on 01.06.95 and in the inspection note, it was mentioned that the gun licence register is not maintained properly for the last 3 years and directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to check out the list of officers, who are holding the charge of the station and to find out, who failed to check the weapons during the 1st and 3rd quarters. In that view of the matter, a charge memo under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to give his explanation. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation, but the same was not considered, as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was barred by limitation. Subsequently, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. THE 3rd respondent disagreeing with the contention of the petitioner, rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.