O R D E R

The punishment of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect imposed on the writ petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was directly recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police and appointed on 02.06.1997. A charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinates Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued against the writ petitioner for an allegation of having illicit intimacy with Women Police Constable 17280 Pushpam and refused to marry her and got illegal abortion. The petitioner denied the charges and based on an oral enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect in order dated 14.11.2002. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (AP), Chennai / Appellate Authority and the said appeal was rejected on 15.07.2003. The petitioner preferred Review Petition before the Inspector General of Police (AP), Trichy on 28.10.2003, who did not considered any of the grounds raised by the writ petitioner on merits and rejected the Review Petition by an order dated 17.12.2003.

3. When the petitioner made a request to transfer him to Law and Order (L&O), the Director General of Police instituted suo moto review proceedings under Rule 15(A)(i)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinates Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, holding that the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner is too lenient and does not commensurate with the nature of the delinquency and accordingly, the petitioner was asked to submit an explanation, why an enhanced punishment should not be imposed on him. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to drop all further actions, but the Director General of Police in his order dated 31.12.2005, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on 31.12.2005. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government on 10.03.2006 and thereafter, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.18683 of 2006, challenging the punishment orders on various grounds. The High Court directed the Government to dispose the appeal on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. Accordingly, the Government issued G.O.2D.No.650 Home (Pol.IX) Department dated 03.11.2006, dealt with the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner and allowed the appeal petition and restored the original punishment of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service and the period of absence was regulated as leave on Loss of Pay. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police on 24.09.2007, after the expiry of the punishment.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the Review Petition filed by the writ petitioner was not dealt with in accordance with the procedures as contemplated under Rule 15 (A)(2)(iii), which states that “An application for review shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these rules”. In the present case, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. The Director General of Police instituted suo moto review proceedings and enhanced the punishment, one of that, dismissal from service. The said punishment was set aside and the original punishment was restored by the Government through the appeal filed by the petitioner. When the petitioner filed a Review Petition before the Government, the Government has not dealt with review petition in accordance with the rules and passed a cryptic order without considering the grounds raised by the writ petitioner. Thus, the order is to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded back for reconsideration.

5.