JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent passed in G.O.(2D) No.464 Home (Pol.IV) Department, dated 01.08.2006 confirming the order passed in G.O.(2D) No.336 Home (Police II) Department, dated 24.08.2005 and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an order passed by the State represented by Secretary to Government, Home (Pol.IV) Department, dated 01.08.2006 confirming the order passed in G.O.(2D) No.336 Home (Police II) Department, dated 24.08.2005.

2. The admitted position is that the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector of Police at Thindivanam Police Station. He was suspended on 07.12.2001 and charges were framed against him under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordindate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (in short 'Rules'). The charge memo dated 11.07.2002 was issued laying out three charges being (i) Highly Reprehensible Conduct in having fabricated false case against Lakshmanan, Mohan, Sadiq, Anandan U/s.41(1) Crl.P.C. and Sec.4 (1) (a) TNP Act in Tindivanam Police Cr.Nos.1107 to 1110 of 2001 and 1111 to 1114 of 2001 respectively on 29.10.2001 (ii) In having illegally dealt with the personal property of the alleged accused in the above cases on 29.10.2001 and (iii) In having failed to examine Rita carefully in Tindivanam Police Station Cr. No.1115 of 2001 U/s.8(b) of P.I.T Act on 29.10.2001.

3. The petitioner tendered an explanation on 01.08.2002 refuting the aforesaid charges. I desist from going into the merits and restict the scope of the matter before me to whether proper procedure has been followed by the authorities in conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. To complete the narration, the explanation filed by the petitioner was considered and an order came to be passed on 24.08.2005 by the Principle Secretary to Government rejecting the explanations tendered on all three grounds. Punishment of 'postponement of Increment for three years with cumulative effect' was imposed.

4. As against the rejection order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent on 05.11.2005. A perusal of the appeal indicates that detailed grounds have been raised, rebutting all the allegations made in the order passed by the original authority and setting forth petitioner's explanations for the sequence of events that had transpired, according to him.

5. The appeal has come to be rejected by way of the impugned order dated 01.08.2006 passed by the respondent which is, to say the least, cryptic. The appellate order comprises four paragraphs, paragraph 1 setting out the charges, paragraph 2 setting out the sequence of events, paragraph 3 referring to the appeal petition and paragraph 4 which is the operative portion of the order, rejecting the appeal on the basis that there was no valid ground for interference. The appellate order, in entirety, is extracted below:

Abstract

Public Services – Police Department – Villupuram District – Thiru D.Rajkumar, Sub-Inspector of Police petition against punishment imposed in PR.18/2002- Rejected – Orders issued.

Home (Pol.IV) Department

G.O.(2D) No.464 Dated: 01.08.2006

Read

From Thiru.D.Rajkumar, Sub-Inspector of Police petition

dated 15.11.2005.

ORDER:

Thiru.D.Rajkumar, Sub Inspector of Police, formerly Villupuram District, now in Cuddalore District was dealt with disciplinary action under/rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) rules, 1955 in PR 18/2002 for the following delinquencies:-

(i) 'Highly Reprehensible Conduct in having fabricated false case against Lakshmanan, Mohan, Sadiq, Anandan U/s.41(1) Crl.P.C. and Sec.4 (1) (a) TNP Act in Tindivanam Police Station Cr.Nos.1107 to 1110 of 2001 and 1111 to 1114 of 2001 respectively on 29.10.2001'

(ii) 'Highly reprehensible conduct in having illegally dealt with the personal property of the alleged accused in the above cases on 29.10.2001'

(iii) 'Highly reprehens