LAWS(MAD)-2022-9-3

S.KALIDOSS Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Decided On September 02, 2022
S.Kalidoss Appellant
V/S
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the competent authority is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 1/12/1988 and he was transferred to Nagapattinam Armed Reserve on 1/1/1992. He was upgraded as Grade-I Police Constable on 1/5/1998. The petitioner was transferred to Law and Order establishment on 1/10/2000. He was upgraded as Head Constable on 1/5/2003. When he was due to the upgradation to the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police, departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge memo was issued in proceedings dtd. 19/2/2014. The charges against writ petitioner are reads as under:

(3.) The petitioner submitted his explanations, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanations, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry and submitted his report, holding that the charges against the petitioner are held proved. The petitioner was furnished with the copy of the Enquiry Officer "s report and accordingly, he submitted his further objections on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority, accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed the punishment of postponement of next increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect in order dtd. 26/2/2015. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the punishment to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur. However, the Appellate Authority issued a show cause notice dtd. 8/5/2015, stating that the punishment imposed on the petitioner in PR.No.4 of 2015 dtd. 26/2/2015 is meagre punishment for the delinquency, which is serious in nature and issued a show cause notice for the purpose of modifying the punishment and the show cause notice states that why the enhanced punishment should not be imposed to the level commensurate to the delinquency. The petitioner submitted his reply on 28/5/2015. The Appellate authority modified the punishment and enhanced the same as compulsory retirement from service.