The Superintendent of Police is the competent Disciplinary Authority for the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, and the punishment imposed was upheld as not excessive or disproportionate.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in PR No.12/2012 dated 20.02.2013 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.B.2/Me.Mu.12/13 dated 27.05.2013 and further rejection by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.220892/AP.I (1)/2013 dated 27.04.2016 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to settle the pensionary benefits and all other consequential service and monetary benefits.

The punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the writ petitioner and confirmed by the Appellate Authority are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that her husband Mr.Baskaran entered into Police Service as Grade-II Police Constable on 26.12.1985 and promoted to the post of Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1995. He was further promoted as Head Constable in the year 2000 and upgraded as Special Sub-Inspector of Police. When the husband of the writ petitioner was holding the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police at Needamangalam Police Station, he was issued with a charge memo based on the complaint of one Mrs.Bajaria, alleging that, “on 28.04.2012, the husband of the petitioner threatened the said complainant Mrs.Bajaria and her daughter Nisha by knocking the door of their house at midnight and misbehaved with them in an uncivilized manner.”

3. The husband of the writ petitioner submitted his explanations, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, an Enquiry officer was appointed, who in turn, conducted the enquiry and submitted a report on 26.10.2012. Based on the findings of the Enquiry officer, a second show cause notice was issued, providing opportunity to the charged official to submit his further objections on the findings of the Enquiry officer. Further explanation was submitted by the charged official and thereafter, final order was passed, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent / DIG of Police, Tanjore Range on 22.03.2013, which was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Mercy Petition to the first respondent on 05.12.2013. During the pendency of the Mercy Petition, the husband of the writ petitioner met with an accident and died on 13.05.2014 and thus, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition, challenging the order of punishment imposed on her husband.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the final order in the disciplinary proceedings was issued by the third respondent / Superintendent of Police, who has no jurisdiction to impose the punishment on the Special Sub-Inspector of Police. The Special Sub-Inspector of Police is equivalent to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and for Sub-Inspector of Police, the 2nd respondent / Deputy Inspector General of Police is the punishing authority and therefore, the order impugned passed by the third respondent is liable to be set aside. The Superintendent of Police is the punishing authority only up to the cadre of Head Constable as per the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the husband of the writ petitioner by the Superintendent of Police is in violation of the rules in force and therefore, it is to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on G.O.Ms.No.15, Home (Police-V) Department dated 07.01.2010, wherein the Powers of the Superintendent of Police / Commissioners of Police has been stated. As per the said Government order, the power of upgradation is granted to the Deputy Inspector General of Police / Commissioner of Police, to upgrade the police personnel, on completion of 25 years of service, out of which 10 years of service have been complet