N. PREMNATH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) At the outset, it requires to be pointed out that the order of the Disciplinary Authority, viz. the second respondent herein, is without jurisdiction, for the following reason. As stated earlier, the petitioner served as a "Naik" in the TSP, VI Battalion, Madurai at the time of delinquency under Rule 4, read with the Schedule to the Rules and the lowest Disciplinary Authority, who may impose the penalty of withholding of increments, is the Deputy Commandant of the Battalion and the Appellate Authority, against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, would be the Commandant. In the present case, the punishment of post-ponement of next increment for the period of one year with cumulative effect, was imposed by the Commandant of TSP, VI Battalion, Madurai. The consequence of the Commandant himself having acted as the Disciplinary Authority, has led to a situation whereby, the petitioner was deprived of filing an appeal against the original order of punishment before the Commandant, since the Commandant himself has acted as the Disciplinary Authority.

(3.) The Rules did not provide for any other form of appeal against the order of the Commandant. Apparently, the petitioner had chosen to make an appeal to the Director General of Police, since his right to the remedy of appeal was lost and therefore, he was constrained to approach the first respondent herein. The first respondent herein, inturn, had observed that the petitioner had not preferred an appeal against the order of Disciplinary Authority, which is factually not plausible since the Appellate Authority himself had acted as a Disciplinary Authority. When the petitioner had been deprived of his valuable right of appeal, the action of the second respondent in considering the Enquiry Officer's report and imposing a punishment, without any right of appeal, cannot be sustained.