M.MOHAMED IQBAL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of postponement of one increment for one year without cumulative effect, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner states that he was directly recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1976 and promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 1988. He was further promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 2003 and to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police during the eve of his retirement. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/4/2010.

(3.) A charge memorandum under Rule 3 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was issued against the writ petitioner and the charges against the writ petitioner was that "Gross neglect of duty and failure to take action in preferring an appeal against the acquittal in Madurai City Sellur Police Station Crime No.803/1989 under Sec. 302, 34, 109, 307 and 342 IPC in time". The petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the charges. The petitioner has stated that Crime No.803/1989 Sellur Police Station was investigated by Thiru Babu Rajendraprasad, Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Circle. He laid the charge sheet and gave evidence to the said case. However, the case ended with an order of acquittal on 20/4/1990. The Thallakulam Circle Inspector was looking after Sellur Police Station, Madavalayam Police Station and Government Rajaji Hospital OP. After the formation of the Commissionerate at Madurai, the Sellur Circle was newly formed on 20/5/1990, consisting of Sellur L&O Police Station, Madavalayam Police Station and Government Rajaji Hospital OP, leaving Thallakulam L&O Police station alone as Thallakulam Circle. The petitioner joined the Sellur Station subsequently on 1/5/1990 after the acquittal of the criminal case in Crime No.803/1989. The petitioner did not know about the case and his predecessor neither handed over the CD file in Crime No.803/1989 nor explained about the acquittal of the case. The petitioner states that Thiru.Babu Rajendraprasad, who had investigated the case, laid the charge sheet and gave evidence to the Court has made to follow up action by preferring an appeal against the acquittal. It is further contended that the copy of the judgment was received by the DPO only on 28/10/1992 and there was a delay. The explanation submitted by the writ petitioner was not considered properly by the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment of postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect was imposed on the writ petitioner in proceedings dtd. 9/7/1998. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 3/9/1998 and the second respondent/Appellate Authority rejected the same on 26/10/1998. The Review Petition filed by the writ petitioner was also rejected by the third respondent on 3/3/1999 and thereafter, the petitioner submitted a Mercy Petition on 19/1/2001, which was rejected by the third respondent on 2/3/2001 and the final Petition before the Government was also rejected.