R CHITTILINGAM Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the order passed in PR.No,22/03 dated 31.01.2005 by the 2nd respondent and the order in appeal in C.No.B1/Ap.05/2005 dated 30.06.2005 and the Show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent in C.No.B1/Ap.05/2005 dated 30.06.2005 and quash the same and direct the respondents to award all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is as follows: - THE writ petitioner was enlisted as a police constable, Grade II on 15.11.1975. He was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1994. He was further promoted as Head Constable in the year 1999. While the petitioner was working as Head Constable in Vandavasi South Police Station, a charge memo in PR.22/2003 dated 9.6.2003 was issued under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. THE misconduct alleged is illicit intimacy, moral turpitude and the misconduct at a police station in Vadavasi. THE details of the charge memo are not relevant for the adjudication of the present case. An oral enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the charges were held to be proved. Petitioner made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai, the punishing authority. THE punishing authority imposed the punishment of reduction in rank from the post of Head Constable to Grade-I Police Constable for a period of three years to be spent on duty and such order was passed on 31.1.2005. Petitioner received the order on 7.2.2005. On 7.3.2005 petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, the first respondent. On 30.6.2005, the said appeal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, the first respondent on the ground of delay. While dismissing the appeal, the first respondent was of the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner, the delinquent police officer, was too lenient and observed as follows:-

(3.) RULE 15(A) provides for review of the department proceedings. The authority can review either on own motion or otherwise call for records of any enquiry and pass appropriate orders as provided under RULE 15(A)(1)(iv) (a), (b), (c) and (d). However, proviso to the rule states that reasonable opportunity should be given to the concerned Government servant against penalty to be imposed. RULE 15A (2) speaks as to when power of review should be exercised.