K BASKARAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect passed by the third respondent in his proceeding dated 16.3.1996 and the consequential order of modified punishment of postponement of increment for six months without cumulative effect passed by the second respondent by his order dated 13.7.1997, confirmed in review by the first respondent by order dated 8.12.1998 and pay all consequential monetary and service benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the Police Service as Sub-Inspector of Police on 2.11.1979 and promoted as Inspector of Police on 1.11.1993. On 12.9.1994, a charge memo was issued in PR.No.127/94 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range. THE charges framed against the petitioner was as follows: "(1) Gross dereliction of duty in failure to register a case u/s.336 and 427 IPC on the complaint of one Dhamodaran of Bandarapalli and taking lenient action against accused Thirupathi @ Pattesan and Mohan by registering cases against them in Natrampalli P.S. Cr.No,650 and 651/93 u/s.41(1) Cr.P.C. instead of u/s.336 and 427 IPC and allowing the S.I. to arrest the accused Ramalingam and Munirathinam in Natrampalli P.S. Cr.No,648/93 u/s.379 IPC. (2) Gross dereliction of duty in failure to interrogate the accused persons Thirupathi @ Pattesan, S/o.Somaiyan @ Chinnathambi (2) Ramalingam, S/o.Lingam @ Mallanooran, (3) Mohan, S/o.Devan @ Devaraj and (4) Munirathinam @ Samannan, S/o.Munusamy on 28.12.93 when they were produced before the delinquent." THE said charges were framed under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules.

(3.) HERE in this case, the appellate authority has taken a lenient view by modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that there is no procedural violation in the conduct of enquiry. In view of such undisputed facts, the punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot be interfered with. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.