M GANDHIDOSS Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THESE writ petitions arose out of O.A.Nos.3544 and 3542 of 1998 filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, they were transferred to this court and were renumbered as W.P.Nos.35848 and 35853 of 2006.

(3.) THE RDO, Thanjavur conducted an enquiry under PSO 145 and forwarded a report to the State Government. THE State Government issued G.O.Ms.No,727, Public (Law and order) department, dated 17.8.94 and directed departmental action against the petitioner. Though the RDO report by giving benefit of doubt to the charge of rape, but however held the petitioner guilty for bringing the woman to the police station in the night hours which is in violation of the Chief Office circular in FOC 18799/C.2/69, dated 22.6.69. THE petitioner claimed ignorance about the said circular. This was not believed by the enquiry office and he submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty. On the basis of the said report, the respondent passed the impugned order imposing a punishment of reprimand. It is this punishment which is under challenge in this writ petition. This court does not find any ground to interfere with the punishment especially when the same was preceded by an enquiry and in which evidence was let in. THE courts' power to interfere with the penalty that too of minor nature is extremely limited as held by the Supreme Court in Praveen Bhatia Vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (4) SCC 225. THErefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.