INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANR. versus THAVASIAPPAN

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 977 · Decided: 25-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
) 
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
THA V ASIAPP AN 
JANUARY 25, 1996 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
B 
Se1vice Laiv: 
. 
. 
Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 
1955: 
c 
Rules 2(h), J(b )-Depmtmental proceedings against Sub-Inspector of 
Police---lnqui1y Officer, a Deputy Supe1intendent of Police-Penalty of com-
pulsory retirement imposed by Deputy Inspector General of Police-Held, 
inquily officer need not be the authority competent to impose penalties 
refC1Ted to in Rule J(b ). 
D 
The respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was' subjected to 
departmental proceedings. The Inquiry Ollicer, a Deputy Superintendent 
of Police, framed the charges and served the same on the respondent; and 
on completion of the inquiry, submitted his report to the Deputy Inspector E 
General of Police, who imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement O!' 
the respondent. The respondent, being unsuccessful in the departmental 
appeal, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which ac-
cepted his contention that only the authority competent to award the 
proposed penalty could have framed and served the charge-memo and as 
the inquiry ollicer was not competent to award the said penalty, imposition F 
thereof even by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was illegal. Ag-
grieved, the Government filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Tribunal erred in holding that in a case falling under G 
_ 1 
rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and 
Appeal) Rules, 1955 the charge-memo should be issued by the disciplinary 
authority empowered to impose the penalties referred to therein and if the 
charge memo is issued by any lower authority then only that penalty can 
be imposed which that lower authority is competent to award. [983-F] 
H 
977 
978 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] l S.C.R. 
A 
State of Madhya p,.adesh v. Shardu/ Singh, [1970] 1 SCC lll8; P. V. 
B 
S1inivasa Saslly v. Comptroller and Auditor General, [1993] 1 SCC 419 and 
Tran.1p01t Commis.rimw; Madras v. Radha !0islma Momthy, [1995] 1 SCC 
332, relied on .. 
1.2. Second paragraph of Rule 3(b)(i) itself contemplates that the 
inquiry oflicer may not he the authority competent to impose the penalties 
referred to therein. If it was intended by the rule making authority that 
the disciplinary authority should itself frame the charge and hold the 
inquiry, then it would not have provided that a report of the inquiry shall 
be prepared by the authority holding the inquiry whether or not such 
C authority is competent to impose the penalty. Generally speaking, it is not 
necessary that the charges should be framed by the authority competent 
to award the proposed penalty or that the inquiry should be conducted by 
such authority. There is nothing to read such a requirement in rule 3(b). 
Besides, as to who shall initiate and conduct a disciplinary )Jroceeding, the 
D Rules are silent. [983-D-E, 922-H] 
E 
F 
G 
2. The case is remitted hack to the Tribunal to consider the other 
contentions raised before it and to dispose of the case in accordance with 
law. [983-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2299 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.92 of the Tamil Nadu 
Administrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. No. 4236 of 1991. 
A. Mariarputham for Arputham Aruna & Co. for the Appellant. 
R. Ayyam Perumal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
NANAVATI, J. 
Leave granted. 
A departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent, a 
H Sub-Inspector of Police, on an allegation that in January 1988, while he was 
)---. 
( 
.. 
+----.. 
r
1.G.P. v. THAVASIAPPAN [NANAVATl,J.J 
979 
_, 
working as PSI at Anthiyur Police Station, he not only did not register a A 
criminal case against one Smt. Jayalakshmi for the offences found to have 
been committed by her but let her off and delivered back the seized articles 
after accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,000 from her. A Deputy Superintendent of 
Police was appointed as an enquiry officer. He framed rhe charges and 
served the same on the respondent. He then held an enquiry and submitted B 
his report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police who was competent 
.... 
to award the proposed penalty. The Dy. Inspector General of police agreed 
't 
with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and imposed the penalty 
of compulsory retirement by an order dated 26.3.91. The respondent f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.