T RAJAKUMAR Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Application No,313 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No,48416 of 2006, seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondents 2 and 1 in connection with the orders passed by them in their Proc.No.P.4/20647/99, dated 29.4.2000 and No.3909/Mu.U/2000, dated 27.11.2000 respectively and quash the same.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner had been initially selected for admission to the post of Junior Assistant, by direct recruitment, on merits. He had joined service, on 18.2.1988. Later, he was promoted to the post of Assistant, on 21.8.1991, and he has been serving in the said post. While so, charge memos, dated 6.9.1999 and 18.9.1999, had been issued to the petitioner, under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. However, before the petitioner could submit his explanation for the charges, after recovering from his serious illness, the second respondent had converted the charges into Rule 17(b) charges, without having proper reasons to do so. Since the documents required by the petitioner had not been supplied to him, he could not submit his explanation. Further, the charges levelled against the petitioner were vague in nature.

(3.) THE first respondent, appellate authority, has no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice for enhancing the punishment meted out to the petitioner. No justifiable reasons have been shown by the first respondent for issuing the charge memo to the petitioner for enhancing the punishment, which had been already given. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.