Heard Mr.K.Venkatramani, Senior Counsel for petitioner and Tmt.C.K.Vishnupriya, Additional Government Pleader for respondent in this O.A.
2.In this O.A.1013 of 2002 (W.P.8366 of 2007), the order dated 29.09.2000 of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Srivaigundam, Tuticorin District, the second respondent herein, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect is questioned.
3.The Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority. According to him, the Superintendent is the competent authority to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect as per column 4 of the Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, shortly the rules.
4.Rule 2 prescribes various penalties and the penalty of withholding of increment is transcribed under rule 2(1)(c). Rule 4 of the rules state that the authority, which may impose any of the penalties transcribed in rule 2 on a member of the service specified in column (i) of the schedule, shall be the authority specified in the corresponding entry in the columns (ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii)and(viii), depending upon the nature of punishment. That is, while column one of the schedule is relating to a member of the police subordinate service, on whom various punishments mentioned in column (ii) to column (viii) would be imposed by the authorities mentioned against those columns or any higher authority.
5.If Inspector of police is the delinquent, one has to see the column (i), where Inspector of police is mentioned. Thereafter, it has to be ascertained the competent authority, who could impose punishment on him, depending on the nature of punishment. Column (iv) is relating to the punishment of withholding of increment and as against the Inspector of police, the Superintendent is mentioned in column(iv) as the competent authority to impose the punishment. Likewise, column (viii) is relating to removal from service and as against the Inspector of Police in column (i), the competent authority mentioned in column (viii) against the Inspector of police is Deputy Inspector General of Police. The Schedule prescribed under the Rules are given here below for better appreciation of the case. THE SCHEDULE (Referred to in rules 2 4 and 5) Lowest authority which may impose the penalty of
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix) Member of service Reprimand Censure or black mark in the case of Reserve Assistant, Sub Inspector Head Constables and others of Correspon-ding rank Withholding of increments or promotion or stoppage at an efficiency bar or recovery from pay to the extent necessary value equivalent to the amount of increments ordered to be withheld where such an order cannot be given effect to or recovery from pay to the extent necessary of the monetary value equivalent to the amount of reduction to a lower stage in a time scale where such order cannot be given effect to Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower grade post or time scale or to a lower stage in the same time scale Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders Suspension Compulsory retirement or removal or dismissal Appellate authority
1.Inspector of Police Superint-endent Superint-endent Superint-endent Dy.Inspr. Genl. Of Police concerned Superint-endent Dy.Inspr. Genl. of Police concerned Dy.Inspr. Genl. Of police concerned Dy.Inspr. Genl. Concerned or the Commissioner as the case may be in respect of
2.S.I.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
3.Gr.I Constable "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
6.When the petitioner raised a ground that the respondent is not a competent authority to impose the punishment, the answer of the respondents in para 10 of their reply affidavit is as follows:- "10) With regard to para 6(6)(b), it is submitted that the post of Addl.Supdt.of Police, has been created to minimize the burden of work of Supdt.of Police and Addl.Supdt.of Police has disciplinary powers as that of Supdt.of Police. Therefore, the orders passed by the second respondent is in order."
7.In my considered view, the answer is not acceptable. The post of Addl.Supdt.of Police was created to minimize the burden of work of Supdt.of Police could not confer on him powers or jurisdiction to act as the competent authority under the Rules to impose the punishments that could be imposed by Supdt.of Police, unless the Rules are suitably amended.
8.It is clear that, The Additional Superintendent of police, the second respondent, is not a competent authority to impose the punishment of withholding of increment, as per the rule 4 read with rule 2 and the schedule of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. No Costs.
pri To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Srivaigundam Tuticorin District.
2.The Additional Superintendent of Police Srivaigundam Tuticorin District.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli District