B.BALRAJ Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Rc.No.216140/Con.V(2)/2003 dated 12.03.2009 and to quash the same and consequently restore his pay to the earlier original stage with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner was serving as Head Constable in the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Kulithalai, he was issued with a charge-memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The charge was that on 22.11.2001 at about 16.00 hours, the police personnel of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing including the petitioner demanded bribe from one K.Silumbayee and a case in Crime No.11 of 2001 has also been registered. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, after investigation, had dropped the further action in the matter and filed a report to the effect before the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Subordinate Court, Karur on 06.01.2004. However, the Government issued G.O(2D)No.316, Home (Pol.II) Department, dated 23.09.2003, directing the first respondent to institute departmental disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officials. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer gave a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 22.12.2006 to the second respondent. The second respondent, vide order dated 02.02.2007, disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and proceeded to hold the charges against the petitioner as not proved and dropped further action against the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent had taken up the matter by way of suo motu review and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 13.11.2008 stating that as to why any one penalties referred to in Rule 2 should not be imposed on him. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the first respondent on 15.12.2008. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2009 holding that the charges against him stood proved and awarded a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for two years with cumulative effect from future increment. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The respondents have filed the counter-affidavit and stated that while the petitioner was working in Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Kulithalai on 22.11.2001, one Rengasamy of the same unit had demanded a sum of Rs.2,500/- on behalf of the petitioner and other police personnel and in furtherance of the said demand, on 26.11.2001, the said Rengasamy had demanded and accepted Rs.3,600/- as bribe from the complainant Silumbayee inside the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Kulithalai and thus failed to maintain their absolute integrity. On the above allegations, an oral enquiry was conducted and on the proved minute drawn by the enquiry officer, according to the deposition of Pws and prosecution exhibits, the second respondent held that the charge against the petitioner 'not proved' by disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and dropped the further action. On review, the first respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner by holding the charge as proved on perusal of connected records and the findings of the enquiry officer and rightly awarded the punishment of reduction of time scale of pay by one stage for two years and the effect on future increment.