The court emphasized that punitive actions under disciplinary rules must follow procedural safeguards including inquiries, as mandated by law.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 03.12.2022, passed by the first respondent, under which the punishment imposed on the petitioner has been enhanced suo moto by imposing the punishment of postponement of next increment for a period of one year, which shall not operate to postpone for future increments from the punishment of censure awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North, Madurai City, on 06.06.2022.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, on the ground that by total non-application of mind to Rule 15A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, which, according to the petitioner, provides for holding of an enquiry before enhancing the punishment, has not been followed while passing the impugned order dated 03.12.2022. The petitioner was earlier imposed with the punishment of censure by the second respondent on 06.06.2022. The same has been enhanced suo moto pursuant to the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 03.12.2022 i.e., the punishment of ensure has been enhanced to the punishment of postponement of next increment for a period of one year, which shall not operate to postpone for future increments.

3. Admittedly, the punishment was enhanced by the first respondent only on suo moto basis. The charge framed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings was that there was a delay on her part in submitting her report in respect of the complaint given against one Mr.Murugan, a Police Constable. The petitioner was working as Inspector of Police at the relevant point of time.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to Rule 15A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, and in particular to Sub-Clause (iv)(c) and the proviso to Sub-Clause(iv)(d) and would submit that the procedure contemplated therein has not been followed by the first respondent before passing the impugned order suo moto enhancing the punishment imposed on the petitioner. He would submit that as per the above provisions, the respondents will have to do the following:

(a) To consult with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, where such consultation is required;

(b) If the first respondent is desirous of enhancing the punishment, the procedure contemplated as per the proviso to Rule 15A(iv)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, by holding a proper enquiry, is to be followed.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above procedure has not been followed by the first respondent before passing the impugned order.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, would reiterate the contents of the counter filed by the second respondent before this Court. According to him, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the first respondent has also considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and only thereafter, has passed the impugned order enhancing the punishment. According to him, there is no procedural violation committed by the respondents, as claimed by the petitioner. He would submit that there is an appeal remedy available to the petitioner as against the impugned order. According to him, having not exercised the same, this writ petition is not maintainable.

7. Admittedly, the contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, namely, non-adherence to Rule 15A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, has not been considere