LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-569

V LATHA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Decided On March 19, 2010
V. LATHA Appellant
V/S
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order, dated 20.6.2009 passed by the first respondent Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District and confirmed by the order of the second respondent, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore, dated 16.12.2009.

(2.) BY the order, dated 20.6.2009, the first respondent imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. However, subsequent to the order, the first respondent himself proposed a suo motu review on the earlier penalty imposed. On the basis of the suo motu review proposal, the second respondent initiated sou motu review on the penalty proposed and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, by proceedings, dated 7.10.2009. After getting the petitioner-s explanation, the second respondent by an order, dated 16.12.2009 imposed a penalty of reduction from the post of the Head Constable to that of Grade I Police constable for a period of two years to be spent on duty. It is against these orders, the writ petition has been filed.

(3.) IN the Annexure-II to the charge memo, it was stated that the petitioner joined as a Constable on 10.5.1991. After joining duty, in 1992 she got married to Vijayakumar and got children through him. The said Vijayakumar was already a married person to one woman Kotteeswari and he had three children through his first wife. Statements were recorded from the said Vijayakumar, his first wife Kotteeswari and Master Prakash, S/o.Vijayakumar. She also got involved in the family partition and sale of the properties by helping in filing a civil litigation in O.S.No.220 of 2003 in the Sub Court, Thiruvannamalai. She was helping the said person in selling his properties. Because of the role played by the petitioner, harm was caused to the children of Kotteeswari and to her. The conduct of the petitioner is in clear violation of Rule 23(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Officers Conduct Rules, 1964.