T SOUNDARARAJAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PENDING writ petition, the writ petitioner had an interim order in his favour in W. P. M. P. No. 18390/2004, which was an ex parte order. The said order came to be vacated at the instance of the Government, which filed W. V. M. P. No. 1475/2004. The writ appeal is directed against that order. The Hon'ble First Bench on 15. 02. 2005 directed the writ appeal to be posted along with the writ petition. That is how the writ appeal and the writ petition are before us.

(2.) THE writ appeal stands admitted. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ appeal and the writ petition are taken up for final disposal. The writ petitioner, who was working as a Head Constable, was promoted temporarily on 05. 12. 1997 to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve), which post he was holding till 06. 05. 2004. It appears that during that period of his temporary office, three proceedings were initiated against him, which ended in awarding black marks in case of two misconducts and stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect in respect of the third misconduct. Relying upon the very same misconduct, the second respondent by proceedings dated 06. 05. 2004 reduced the rank of the writ petitioner from the post of temporary Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) to his original post namely, Head Constable. This was followed by the consequential order dated 12. 05. 2004 passed by the third respondent. As already stated, the reduction in rank is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. Rule 3 (b) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, mandatorily provides that "before ever a punishment of reduction in rank is imposed, it shall be so done only after the grounds on which it is proposed to take such action stand reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges; communication of the same to the persons charged together with a statement of allegations on which each charge is framed and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case". The procedure to be followed thereafter is also prescribed namely, oral enquiry. In this case admittedly the order impugned in the writ petition had come to be passed in total violation of Rule 3 (b) (i) of the Rules referred to above namely, no charges were framed and no oral enquiry was conducted.

(3.) MR. R. VIJAYAKUMAR learned Government Advocate defending the action of the