The proportionality of the punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

1. The petitioner challenged the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect passed by the respondent.

2. When the petitioner was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police in police control room at Villupuram from 26.09.89 to 05.07.90, he was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 in P.R.No.259/90, containing two charges, which are as follows:-

i. Highly reprehensible conduct in committing criminal trespass into the house of Gunasekara Reddiar and outraging the modesty of the womanfolk, Tmt.Porkodi, Revath and Tmt.Muthial on 15.01.90 at about 5.30 p.m. in Thottakaran st., Attur in Chengalpet taluk and thereby involving in a criminal case in Chengalpattu taluk P.S.Cr.No.14/90, u/s 148, 336, 323 and 354 IPC.

ii. Unbecoming conduct of a police officer in manipulating the General Diary of the police booth in the bus stand at Villupuram on 15.01.90 as if you were present in the bus stand duty where as you were actually involved in the criminal case in Chengalpattu taluk P.S.Cr.No.14/90 u/s 148, 336, 323 and 354 IPC that occurred on 15.01.90 at about 5.30 p.m. at Attur Village in Chengalpattu taluk.

The first charge in Cr.No.14/90 was ended in acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu on 09.06.94. Since the first charge was dropped, the charge memo was revised and fresh charge memo in P.R.No.262/94 was framed. After receiving the second charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The disciplinary authority, having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, ordered for enquiry. The enquiry officer, after giving all the reasonable opportunities on either side, came to the conclusion that the charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority, accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, passed orders on 23.01.96, dropping further action in PR.No.262/94. Since the charges were emanated on the outcome of the enquiry officers report, the disciplinary authority has sent the above PR file to the Government for review. The Government keeping quite for 1 and ½ years, after review, disagreeing with the report of the enquiry officer, by exercising the power under Rule 15 (A)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, issued suo-moto show cause notice dated 01.08.97. After receiving the charge memo in P.R.No.262/94, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation denying all the charges citing that the criminal court as well as departmental enquiry were decided in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the charge mentioning that the petitioner actually involved in the criminal case in Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station in Cr.No.14/90 u/s 448, 354, 336 and 323 IPC that occurred on 15.01.90 at about 5.30 p.m. at Attur Village in Chengalpattu Talu, cannot be held against the petitioner. However, the said explanation was disallowed and then the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the first charge was dismissed both by the criminal court as well departmental authorities, the disciplinary authority, keeping quite for 1 and ½ years, initiated disciplinary proceedings, that too, by exercising the suo-motto power by alleging that the conduct of a police officer in manipulating the General Diary of the police booth in the bus stand at Villupuram on 15.01.90 as if the petitioner was present in the bus stand duty, when he was actually involved in the criminal case in Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station in Cr.No.14/90 u/s 148, 354, 336 and 323 IPC that occurred on 15.01.90 at about 5.30 p.m. at Attur Village in Chengalpattu Taluk, cannot proceed against the petitioner, because the first charge memo in PR.259/90 is als