M SIVARAMAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT; THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VELLORE RANGE; THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER) AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.A. No. 6607 of 1997, challenging an order of punishment given to him, by which he was reduced in rank for a period of one year and also treating the period of suspension as leave subject to his eligibility.

(2.) The petitioner was chargesheeted under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, by a charge memorandum, dated 14.8.87. The charge against the petitioner was that he demanded illegal gratification from one Arumugam, S/o.Dharma Gounder of Sirumer Village on 13.7.87, while he was on medical leave in the village. The second charge was his reprehensible conduct of bringing the said Arumugam to Arni Taluk Police Station on 13.7.87 and detaining him unlawfully. An enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai. Both the charges were found proved by the Enquiry Officer.

(3.) It was thereafter, the fourth respondent agreeing with the charge memo, found the petitioner guilty and imposed a punishment of reduction of the petitioner from the post of Head Constable to that of Grade I Police Constable for one year. The suspension was revoked and the period of suspension was treated as an extraordinary leave. Subsequently, after giving show cause notice, the period of suspension was regulated. The petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent, the appellate authority. The second respondent found that charge No. 2 alone was proved and for charge No. 1, there was no evidence. But even for the proved second charge, the gravity of misconduct was so severe and hence he found that the punishment was adequate.