S.SIVABALAN Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order passed by the second respondent in proceeding date 09.11.2011, reverting the writ petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police to Head Constable (Armourer) is sought to be quashed.

(2.) The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Police Constable in Armed Reserve and thereafter, promoted to the post of Head Constable (Armourer). The writ petitioner was temporarily promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and he was working in Trichy District. The writ petitioner admits that the charge memo was issued by the first respondent under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 07.12.2006. The allegation against the writ petitioner was that he was assaulted one woman Police Constable 850 Subhajayini of AR, Trichy District in an inebriated mood and forcibly taken her and other charges were also framed against the writ petitioner. Enquiry was conducted and accordingly, punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years was imposed. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner was working as Sub- Inspector of Police, reduction could not be given effect to. Thus, the mandatory value of Rs.1,07,136/- equivalent to the reduction in time scale of pay was recovered by way of equal monthly instalments. Therefore, another memo was issued under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in respect of the allegations of absence from duty without getting prior permission from the higher officials. The writ petitioner submitted his explanations and the authorities competent imposed a punishment of censure on 19.03.2010. The first respondent published C-list for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on regular basis for the year 2010. The promotion was given based on the seniority in the feeder category. The name of the writ petitioner was not considered on the ground that currency of punishment of censure was in force during the crucial date and the names of his juniors were included in the C-list for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner was reverted back to the post of Head Constable (armour) in proceeding dated 09.11.2011.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the said order amounts to double punishment, which is not permissible under law. It is further stated that the writ petitioner was already imposed with an order of punishment of reduction in time scale of pay and therefore, the equivalent amount was also recovered from the salary by way of instalments. In respect of other charges, punishment of censure was imposed. Thus, the impugned order of reversion is untenable.