T.GUNASEKARAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order of the second respondent dated 21.10.2008 imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1979 based on selection made by TNPSC, On 07.08.1986, while the petitioner was working at Avadi, he cleared the encroachment made by one police constable in the temple land. Aggrieved by the removal of encroachment, the said police constable gave a complaint on 08.08.1986 to the vigilance as if the petitioner has demanded a sum of Rs. 300/-. A charge memo was issued on 19.08.1987 for the said incident. On 02.07.1998, final order was passed by the disciplinary authority viz., the Deputy Inspector General of Police stating that there was motive on the part of the complainant and there was no demand or bribe on the part of the petitioner. However, a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years in two stages with cumulative effected was imposed. Aggrieved about the said punishment imposed, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police which was rejected by a non-speaking order dated 24.02.1999. As against the said order, the petitioner filed review petition before the Director General of Police under Rule 15(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955. The said review petition was allowed by the Director General of Police on 23.07.2001 by setting aside the order of punishment and the petitioner was warned. In the year 2002, the petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police i.e. after the finality of the disciplinary proceedings. While the petitioner was serving as Inspector of Police, the second respondent initiated suo motu review under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 and was issued a show cause notice on 26.06.2006 i.e., after a lapse of five years. The petitioner submitted objection for initiating suo motu proceedings after a lapse of seven years. The second respondent without considering the said objection passed the impugned order dated 21.10.2008 imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The grievance of the petitioner is that final order having been passed by the Director General of Police as early as on 23.07.2001 modifying the punishment of withholding of one increment with that of warning, initiation of suo motu proceedings by second respondent after a lapse of seven years, is illegal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of mine in N. Bose vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 and another, 2009 1 CTC 529 wherein exercise of suo motu power with unreasonable delay of 7 years was set aside by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Rajkumar Brijender Singh, 2004 10 SCC 585 . Learned counsel also submitted that the said judgment was followed in a subsequent decision of this Court in K. Jayakumar vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai and others,2010 1 CWC 748 wherein also the learned Judge has relied on the judgment of this Court in A. Thangavelu v. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, 1998 1 CTC 283 apart from the above referred judgment of mine and allowed the writ petition. Both the said cases arose out of Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, which is in parimateria with Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955.

(3.) When the matter was heard on 07.01.2013, the learned counsel for the respondents was directed to go through the said orders and find out whether writ appeals were filed against the said orders. Today, learned counsel for the respondents, after going through the judgments, submitted that no appeal is filed against the said orders.