The court clarified the jurisdiction of the appointing authority to issue a charge memo and the interpretation of relevant rules and constitutional provisions.

1. With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner is a Junior Assistant in the police department. He was issued with a charge memo dated 20.06.2013 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The charge memo was issued by the Superintendent of Police. The charge memo is challenged before this Court on the sole ground that the Superintendent of Police lacks jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, the appointment order dated 23.10.2006 states that the Director General of Police is the appointing authority and therefore, he is alone competent to issue charge sheet.

3. Heard both sides.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Rule 8 of the Rules prescribes various penalties, both minor and major. Those penalties are, (i) Censure; (ii) Fine; (iii) Withholding of increments or promotion; (iv) Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post; (v) Recovery from pay; (vi) Compulsory retirement; (vii) Removal from service; (viii) Dismissal from service; and (ix) suspension. The penalties mentioned in item Nos.(i) to (iii), (v) and (ix) are deemed as minor penalties and the penalties mentioned in item Nos.(iv), (vi) to (viii) are deemed as major penalties.

6. Rule 9(c)(2) is relevant for the purpose of this case and the same is extracted as hereunder :

"9(c)(2). The Authority competent under these Rules to impose any of the penalties specified in items (i) to (iii) and (v) of Rule 8 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in items (iv) and (vi) to (viii) of Rule 8 notwithstanding the fact that such Authority is not competent under these Rules to impose any of the latter mentioned penalties."

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on Article 311 of the Constitution of India and has submitted that no authority less than the rank of the appointing authority could initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing the charge sheet.

8. I am not impressed with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule 9(c)(2) makes it very clear that it is not necessary that the appointing authority shall initiate disciplinary proceedings. Article 311 of the Constitution only put a restriction that the punishment mentioned therein shall not be imposed by an authority less than the rank of appointing authority.

8. In fact Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, which is similar to Rule 9(c)(2), came for consideration before the Apex Court in Inspector General of Police and another V. Thavasiappan, AIR 1996 SC 1318. In the said case, the following passage in paragrahs 7 and 9 are extracted hereunder:

"7. Before we consider the requirement of Rule 3(b) we will refer to the three decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. He first invited our attention to the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh V. Shardul Singh (1970) 1 SCC 108 : (1971 Lab IC (N) 5). In that case a departmental enquiry was initiated against a Sub-Inspector of Police by Superintendent of Police who after holding an enquiry sent his report to the Inspector General of Police who ultimately dismissed the Sub Inspector of Police from service. The order of dismissal from service as challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on the ground that the enquiry held by Superintendent of Police was against the mandate of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution as he was incompetent to conduct the enquiry. The Sub Inspector of Police was appointed by the Inspector General of Police. The High Court allowed the petition. The State preferred an appeal to this Court. Rejecting the contention that the guarantee given under Article 311 (1) includes within itself a further guarantee that the disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal o