N RAVINDRAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the writ jurisdiction of this court, the petitioner, the Inspector of Police attached to Tamil Nadu Police Department, has filed this writ petition for the issue of the writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent, namely the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, passed in Rc No. 22/d1/pr/2004, dated 27. 10. 2004 imposing a punishment of postponement of next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and the consequential order passed by the first respondent, namely the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Tamil Nadu, Chennai, in his Rc No. 17585/ap 2 (3)/2005, dated 1. 8. 2005 confirming the above punishment.

(2.) THE court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner, seeking the above relief, is that the petitioner, who joined the Police service as Sub Inspector of Police on 13. 10. 1976, was promoted as the Inspector of Police on 4. 12. 1990; that while the petitioner was working at Aruppukkottai Taluk Police Station from June, 2000 to November, 2000, on 1. 11. 2000, one Velusamy had given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, stating that one Jeyaraman of Lakshmipuram, had assaulted him on 30. 10. 2000 night; that a case was registered in Aruppukkottai Taluk Police Station in Crime No. 225/2000 under Section 307 IPC; that the said Jeyaraman was brought to the police station; that he was aged about 56 years; that he was in police custody; that out of fear that he would be remanded to judicial custody, all of a sudden, he injured his nose by himself and there was a bleeding from his nose; that he was sent to the Government Hospital, Aruppukkotai with the medical memo; that in view of the fact that he had hyper tension and giddiness and his condition was not well, he was released on bail at about 20. 45 hours on 1. 11. 2000; that pursuant to the complaint given by the said Jeyaraman that he was assaulted by the petitioner when he was in police custody, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry and has also given a specific finding that there was no evidence to hold that the petitioner was guilty, but he has recommended for departmental action; that accordingly, a charge was framed against the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range under Rule 3 (b); that the Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime, Virudhunagar District was appointed as the Enquiry Officer; that during enquiry, number of witnesses were examined and he has also given a finding that the charge has not been proved; that despite the same, when the matter was placed before the second respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, he has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and has held that the second part of the charge was proved; that the second respondent had agreed that the petitioner had not assaulted the said Jeyaraman, but the given charge is for having assaulted Jayaraman, which resulted in bleeding from his nose; that so far as the show cause notice was concerned, it should not have been issued and action should have been dropped, in view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer; that the petitioner was given punishment of postponement of next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect; that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, namely the Additional Director General of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai, but without any speaking order, he has rejected the appeal and under these circumstances, this writ petition has been brought forth before this court.