VAIRAMOHAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police at Villupuram Taluk Police Station under the fourth respondent. While working in the said capacity, he used to register several cases under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and got conviction of the Offenders. He was later transferred to Ulundurpet Police Station and while working there, a charge memo dated 10.05.2006, came to be issued against him under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service (D & A) Rules, 1955 to the effect that he has altered and minimized the Section of Law on 14 prohibition cases registered during the year 2004-2005 and gave disposal without obtaining Chemical Report from the Forensic Laboratory. The charge which was framed against the petitioner was as follows:

(2.) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, namely, the fourth respondent, Tindivanam Sub Division, Villupuram District was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who, after conducting enquiry into the charges, for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 01.08.2006, has submitted his report dated 27.10.2006 holding the petitioner responsible for the charge. The petitioner has submitted his further explanation on 11.11.2006 on receipt of the Enquiry Officer's report and subsequently, the third respondent, the Original Authority has imposed punishment on 12.12.2006 on the petitioner of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for the period of two years without cumulative effect. It was against the said order of the third respondent, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the second respondent on 13.01.2007 and the second respondent by his proceedings dated 28.05.2007 has confirmed the original order of the third respondent. The petitioner has filed a further mercy petition to the first respondent on 06.12.2007. The first respondent in the order dated 08.04.2008, while accepting with the finding of both the original as well as the appellate authority, has however reduced the quantum of punishment by modifying the same to reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for the period of one year which shall not operate the postponement of his future increments. It is as against the said orders of the first, second and third respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) The impugned orders are assailed mainly on the ground that the petitioner being the Sub-ordinate Officer of the Police Station has acted only as per the instruction of the superiors. Further it is the case of the petitioner that even during the course of the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer, the Inspector of Police who has deposed has clearly admitted that such procedure of registering the case without obtaining chemical report from the Forensic Laboratory has been followed in various cases under his control for which no action were initiated against him. The petitioner has been singled out and therefore there is a discrimination. Further it is the case of the petitioner that the disciplinary authorities as well as the appellate authority have failed to note that by such conduct, the petitioner has only facilitated the disposal of many number of criminal cases on the prohibition offences and there was no personal gain by such conduct.