The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures in disciplinary actions and criminal prosecutions based on reports and recommendations.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to take appropriate action against the erred officials and other culprits in view of the report submitted by the third respondent made in C.No.12/ADSP (C)/TAN/2011, dated 31.03.2011 and consequently pay punitive damages of RS.10 lakhs to the petitioner within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.)

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to initiate appropriate action as against the official respondents and other culprits, based upon the report submitted by the third respondent on 31.03.2011 and consequently pay punitive damages of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, she and her mother are residing in the petition mentioned address for more than thirty years. Due to family dispute, her father's sister wanted to grab the property after the demise of her father. Hence, she has instituted O.S.No.594 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, as against her relatives for the relief of partition and separate possession. While the said suits were pending, her Aunt had made some arrangements to dispossess the petitioner and her mother from the property, on the basis of some alleged sale agreement entered into between her Aunt and the tenth respondent herein. The hooligans and his allies had threatened the petitioner and her mother with serious consequences and directed them to vacate the premises on 18.11.2010. Though the said fact was brought to the notice of the police officials, the complaint was closed as accessible dispute.

3. The petitioner has further alleged that again on 24.12.2010, the hooligans, along with twenty other persons forcibly entered into the house property and obtained signatures in cheque leaves, blank papers and blank stamp papers forcibly. Though he contacted the sixth respondent, Sub- Inspector of Police for immediate action, he did not respond. According to the petitioner, on 29.12.2010, the petitioner's mother was forcibly taken to Canara Bank and opened a joint account and obtained signature from her for depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The hooligans had physically abused the petitioner and throw them in the street, under the guise of an agreement with the help of police officials, who had failed to initiate any appropriate action. Though these issues were brought to the knowledge of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kumbakonam, he did not initiate any action either against his subordinates or against to the said hooligans. Hence, the petitioner was forced to sent a legal notice on 21.12.2010. Based upon the complaint given by the petitioner, the third respondent herein had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report, dated 31.03.2011, under which, he has recommended for strict disciplinary action as against the respondents 5 to 7 police officials. Since no action was initiated pursuant to the said report, the present writ petition has been filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to initiate action, based upon the said enquiry report.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had contended that despite pendency of a civil suit, some rowdy elements had threatened and thrown away the petitioner and her mother from the property illegally. The police officials instead of taking action as against the rowdy elements, have colluded with them and only with their support, all these illegal activities have taken place. Hence, he prayed for appropriate action as against the official respondents and for payment of compensation.

5. The third respondent herein had filed a counter contending that appropriate disciplinary action have been initiated as against all the official respondents. As against the seventh respondent, a full-fledged enquiry was conducted and she was imposed with a punishment of reduction