Scribd
Upload
4 views2 pages

Murugan

Thiru V. Murugan, an Inspector of Police, faced a departmental enquiry and a criminal case which delayed his promotions and MACP benefits. Although his punishment was set aside by the Appellate Authority, a pending criminal case still affects his departmental proceedings. He claims that false reports from the DE section regarding pending enquiries are hindering his eligibility for further MACP benefits, which he seeks to rectify.

Uploaded by

23351012
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views2 pages

Murugan

Thiru V. Murugan, an Inspector of Police, faced a departmental enquiry and a criminal case which delayed his promotions and MACP benefits. Although his punishment was set aside by the Appellate Authority, a pending criminal case still affects his departmental proceedings. He claims that false reports from the DE section regarding pending enquiries are hindering his eligibility for further MACP benefits, which he seeks to rectify.

Uploaded by

23351012
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The complaint received from Thiru V.

Murugan, Inspector of Police, placed below may


please be perused. The gist of the complaint is as follows:-

Thiru V.Murugan, was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 01.06.2004 by


direct recruitment. In the year 2014, on a complaint of one Malarviji, a common Departmental
Enquiry has been initiated against him and one Rajeshjkumar, PC. Further a Criminal case in
Cr.No.09/2014 dated 04.08.2014 was also registered against him and six others. Due to the
pendency of the departmental enquiry, his promotion/MACP was kept under sealed cover for
many years. Aggrieved by the same Thiru V.Murtugan, has filed a case in O.A.No.809 of 2019
before the Hon’ble CAT, Madras Bench and the same was disposed of vide order dated
01.07.2019 with direction to consider him for promotion. In the meantime, the then DGP the
disciplinary authority has issued an order dated 02.01.2020 in the disciplinary proceedings with a
punishment of ‘with-holding of one increment without cumulative effect”. Aggrieved with the
punishment the official has preferred an Appeal Petition before the Appellate Authority, the Chief
Secretary and the punishment was set aside by the Appellate Authority vide order dated
30.03.2021. Subsequently, I was considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police on
ad-hoc basis on 20.07.2022 and granted my 1st MACP on 16.06.2023. He further stated that he is
eligible for 2nd MACP on completion of 20 years of service and as on date no DE is pending
against him but the staff in the DE section have furnished the false report that DE is pending
against him and hence requested to take action against the staff of the DE section and to grant
2nd MACP.

In this connection, it is submitted that in the disciplinary proceeding case of the Thiru
V.Murugan, Inspector of Police, the Appellate Authority the Chief Secretary vide order dated
30.03.2021 has passed the following order:-

“In view of these facts, it would be just and proper to set aside the order of the
Disciplinary Authority being self-conflicting in nature. The Disciplinary Authority may however
again take a call on the course of action in the matter, when the judgment of trial court becomes
available. “

In the above order, even though the punishment was set aside, the Appellate Authority
has clearly stated that the Disciplinary Authority may however again take a call on the course of
action in the matter, when the judgment of trial court becomes available”. The said criminal case
in Cr.No.09/2014 dated 04.08.2014 is still pending before the Hon’ble …………….Court,
Puducherry. Only based on the outcome of the judgment in the Cr.No.09/2014, the Disciplinary
Authority, may conclude the department proceedings as directed by the Appellate Authority. In
view of the above fact, necessary report has been submitted by this DE section stating that DE is
pending in respect of Thiru V.Murugan, Inspector of Police.

Further, it is submitted that in respect of Thiru V.Murugan, Inspector of Police, the date of
1st MACP fall on 01.06.2014 and the Criminal Case was registered only on 04.08.2014
subsequent to the due date. Hence, during the period of 1 st MACP i.e. as on 31.05.2014
(completion of ten years of service) no DE is pending against him and hence, he was granted 1 st
MACP.
In view of the as on date, the criminal case in Cr.No.09/2014, is pending trial, based on
which report has been submitted by the DE section that DE is pending respect of Thiru
V.Murugan, Inspector of Police and hence the allegations of the complainant Thiru V.Murugan,
Inspector of Police is false.

With the above, the file may be submitted to the DGP through OSD/SP(HQ)/SSP(HQ),
for further orders please.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy