R SUNDARARAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 3. 10. 2001, imposing the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay, by two stages, for two years and a punishment of postponement of increment and future increments for two years and the consequential order of the first respondent dated 20. 2. 2004, rejecting the petitioner's appeal petition for cancellation of the said punishment insofar as the petitioner is concerned and quash the same and to direct the respondents herein to repay the petitioner the monetary value withheld for the punishment with all consequential monetary and service benefits.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that while the petitioner was working as Grade-I Police Constable in C 3 Seven Wells Crime Police Station, he was served with a charge memo in P. R. 29/93, under rule 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The allegation in the charge memo is that the petitioner had illegally detained one Balaraman, on 9. 6. 1992 and 10. 6. 1992 and he had supported the illegal action of the Sub Inspector of Police, Gunasekaran. Along with the petitioner, 15 other police personnel were also issued with similar charges. But the charges against ten of them had been dropped for various reasons. However, by an order, dated 3. 10. 2001, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay, by two stages, for two years as well as postponement of future increments for two years.

(3.) IT has been further submitted that the petitioner had made several representations to the Authorities concerned to cancel the order of punishment, on par with the ten other police personnel against whom the charges had been dropped. In such circumstances, the first respondent-Commissioner of Police, Chennai, had requested the second respondent to pass appropriate orders by his proceedings in Rc. No. PR. Nos. 18 to 33/pr. II (3)/93, dated 25. 6. 2003. It is stated that no order has been passed by the second respondent on the request of the first respondent, till date.