P PERIYASAMY Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application in O.A.No.1871 of 2000 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No. 45187 of 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 12.05.1976 and he was promoted to the post of Constable Grade I in the year 1993-1994. After completion of five years of service in Grade I Police Constable, he should have been upgraded to the post of Head Constable. While the petitioner was serving, a charge memo was issued by the respondent. After receiving the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the petitioner has not denied the charges leveled against him and specifically mentioned that the immovable property in respect of Mortgage Deed as executed by the family members along with the petitioner does not fall under Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Particularly, in his explanation he stated that if the immovable property in question is not acquired from the resources of the Government Service concerned, the Government Servant is not required to give notice to the prescribed authority or seek prior permission from the prescribed authority for acquisition or disposal of immovable properties by the members of his family under Class (a). THE disciplinary authority having not satisfied with the above said explanation proceeded against the petitioner and finally found him guilty of the above said charge. As a result, the disciplinary authority imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect against the petitioner by order dated 30.06.1999.

(3.) RULE 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) RULEs is extracted as under:-