K MUNIAPPAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has jointed as Sub Inspector of Police on 28. 9. 1987 and was promoted as Inspector of Police. In this writ petition he challenges the minor punishment imposed on him under Rule 3 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

(2.) 2. 1. While the petitioner was working as a Sub Inspector of Police at Ammapet Police Station, on 22. 2. 1996, he was served with a charge memo under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and hecarge rel Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 ates to his investigation in Crime No. 815 of 1991 on the file of the Ammapet Police Station under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) 3. 1. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, while it is admitted that the charge against the petitioner was issued under Rule 3 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 for the delinquency of perfunctory investigation conducted by the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police in Crime No. 815 of 1991 on the file of the Ammapet Police Station under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, it is stated that as a Sub Inspector of Police, the petitioner has registered a case under Sections 341 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code on 3. 8. 1991 at 11 p. m. and investigated; that during the course of his investigation, he visited the scene of crime, drew observation mahazar, prepared rough sketch, examined witnesses and recorded their statements; that he has also recovered the material objects from the scene of occurrence; that after the death of the deceased Kumar, the offence was altered into one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and express report was sent to the Inspector of Police for further investigation; and that the Sessions Judge, while acquitting the case, has made an adverse remark about the perfunctory investigation on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was inflicted with the charge and departmentally punished.