The judgment established the importance of maintaining integrity and honesty in public duties and the need for efficient and effective public administration to eradicate corrupt practices.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records in the connection with the charge memo P.R. No.53/H-1/2010 dated 09.04.2010 issued by the 4th Respondent herein and the order of punishment PR No.53/H1/2010 CSPO.No. 1923/2010 dated 17.09.2010 passed by the 5th respondent herein and the order of rejection on appeal RC.No. HI/1212/ 61177/2010 Appeal No.59/HI 2010 dated 26.10.2010 passed by the 3rd Respondent herein and the order of rejection on review application G.O.(2D) No.446 dated 13.08.2013 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of SSI from the date of 09.04.2010 with all service and terminal benefits.)

1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years and the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments for three years. The appellate authorities also have confirmed the order of punishment. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was recruited as Gr-II Police Constable in the year 1977. He was promoted upto the level of Special Sub Inspector of Police and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, in the year 2010. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service. While he was in service, a charge memo was issued with an allegation that the writ petitioner was receiving mamool of Rs.50/- twice a week from one Mr.Ravi, S/o. Shanmugam, who was running a bunk shop nearby TASMAC Shop No.9033 at Keezhkondaiyar, Periyar Nagar.

3. The charge memo reveals that statement of misconduct and the list of documents relied upon as well as the list of witnesses examined were stated. An enquiry officer was appointed, who in turn conducted an enquiry with reference to the charges framed against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry. The writ petitioner has cross examined the department witnesses and the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report, holding that the charge against the writ petitioner was held proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years and the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments for three years. the petitioner peferred appeals and the said appeals were rejected.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the writ petitoner was having unblemished record of service for about 35 years and the charges are based on certain false complaint. There was no shop nearby the TASMAC shop as alleged by the complainant. the enquiry was not conducted properly and the documents relied on were not supplied. That apart, the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages was imposed during the fag end of retirement and thus, such a punishment cannot be implemented.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the circular issued by the Director General of Police dated 27.05.2010, wherein it is stated that the disciplinary authorities shall ensure that the punishments proposed to be imposed can be implemented fully during the service period of the deliquent officer and avoid imposing unimplementable punishment in future.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the said contention by stating that the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner is reduction in time scale of pay by three stages. The said punishment was imposed when the writ petitioner was in service. Therefore, it is implementable and the monetary value equivalent to that of the reduction of time scale is to be recovered towards the punishment and the said circular is not applicable with reference to the facts and circumstan