S LOGANATHAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Application No.170 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No,48390 of 2006, seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect and the appellate authority's order passed in PR 61/99, dated 23.6.2000, and C.No.D2/AP-87/DIG-TNA/2000, dated 17.9.2000, passed by the first and second respondents respectively and quash the same with all consequential monetary and service benefits.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he had joined the police service, as a Grade-II Police Constable, on 1.8.1984. He was promoted as a Grade-I Police Constable in the year, 1998. As such the petitioner had a blemishless and meritorious service, until he was served with a charge memo, in PR 61/99, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, by the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District, dated 23.12.1999. THE allegation in the charge memo is that the petitioner had some connection with certain prohibition offenders and that he had received `Mamool' from them, on 24.10.1999. During the oral enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi, Sub-Division, the crucial witnesses had not supported the charge. However, on 7.3.2000, the enquiry officer, without properly analysing the evidence available, had come to the conclusion that the charges alleged against the petitioner had been proved. On 10.4.2000, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District, had communicated the copy of the enquiry report and had asked the petitioner to submit his explanation. Even though the petitioner had denied the charges levelled against him, the first respondent had passed a final order, dated 23.6.2000, imposing the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay, by two stages, for two years, with cumulative effect.

(3.) EVEN though a reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent denying the claims made by the petitioner, nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondents to justify the appellate order of the second respondent, dated 17.9.2000, which is bereft of reasons.