P ERAJAN INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH SALEM Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TIRUNELVELI RANGE TIRUNELVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order, dated 5. 5. 2004, of the Tamil nadu Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the above two Writ Petitions. Since the issue involved and the parties in the above two Writ Petitions are one and the same, these two Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE facts, leading to the filing of these petitions, are as follows: a. THE petitioner is working as Inspector of Police. He was served with a Charge Memo dated 18. 11. 2002 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range and subsequently, by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range on 2. 1. 20036. THE Charge Memo Contains the following two allegations: ' ; a. Reprehensible conduct in having demanded and accepted a bribe amount of Rs. 5000 at his residence D. No. 23 (Old No. 29)Rama Lakshmana Nagar, Erode, on 6. 5. 2002 at 16. 00 hrs. from one K. Selvaraj s/o. Kumarasami, threatening him he would be arrested in Erode E. O. W. Cr. No. 3/2000 and assured him that no action would be taken against him after the receipt of bribe. b. Gross neglect of duty and reprehensible conduct in having insisted Tr. Subramanian, Director, State Finance Company, Erode on 4/5. 5. 2000 at 02. 00 hrs. to record the loan or deposit amount of Rs. 3,70,000 instead of Rs. 2,70,000 received from Thiru. Kulandaivelu, Panumathi and uthayakumar with ante date in the blank pronotes seized from State Finance Company on 3. 5. 2000 in connection with E. O. W. Cr. No. 3/2000 with intention to take the difference amount of Rs. 1,00,000 for his own.' ; b. THE enquiry officer, who conducted an enquiry, held that the charges against the petitioner were proved and thereby the Deputy inspector General of Police published by the Government of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. c. Further, since the punishment was imposed on the petitioner, his name was not included in the panel for promotion as Deputy superintendent of Police published by the Government in Police Note No. 11, dated 26. 2. 2004. d. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed two applications before the Tribunal for the following two reliefs. ' ; a. To quash the punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect imposed by the deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, in his proceedings No. P. R. 3/2004/tin Range, P. R. No. 78/2002 (SP/erode) dated 28. 2. 2004. b. To direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with due seniority and all consequential benefits.' ; e. However, the Tribunal, after considering the documents available on record, dismissed the applications. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petitions invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) PER Contra , the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would contend that when in respect of the second charge a finding was given by the enquiry officer as well as the Tribunal that the said charge was proved, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer and the Tribunal as well by re-appreciating the evidence and it cannot come to a different conclusion.