M SHANMUGASUNDARAM Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Application No,249 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No,6558 of 2006, seeking for a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order in PR.No,418/PR2(1)/2000, dated 23.11.2000, served on 21.12.2000, and quash the same and grant him such other further relief.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for and quash the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 23.11.2000, made in PR.No,418/PR2(1)/2000, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years, without cumulative effect.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. It is in violation of the service rules applicable to the petitioner, as well as the principles of natural justice. It is a case of no evidence and therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 23.11.2000, is liable to be set aside. THE learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioner, before he was asked to give a further representation, nor was it given along with the order of punishment, dated 23.11.2000. Further, the Inspector of Police is incompetent to issue a charge memo to the petitioner, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant point of time. THE Inspector of Police is not the disciplinary authority and therefore, the charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be sustained, as valid. THE punishment imposed on the petitioner based on the said charges would also be non est in law.