P PUGAZENDHI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as Inspector of Police at Kallakurichi since 1.5.1997. A Charge Memo in PR. No. 109/98 under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued to thepetitioner. He submitted his detailed explanation on 15.07.1999 denying the charges. The first respondent byimpugned order dated 28.9.1999 imposed punishment ofpostponement of increment for two years without cumulativeeffect. The appeal against the said order to the secondrespondent was rejected by order dated 2.2.2000 in C. No. B3/Appeal 89/99. The review petition to the thirdrespondent was partly allowed by order dated 13.2.2001, modifying the punishment to that of stoppage of oneincrement without cumulative effect.

(2.) The petitioner filed O.A. No. 5331 of 2001 (W.P. No. 49573 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid ordeRs.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitionersubmits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer, based on which, the impugned order dated 28.9.1999 was passed by thefirst respondent imposing the punishment of postponement ofincrement for two years without cumulative effect, was notfurnished to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order isliable to be set aside.