INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE vs THAVASIAPPAN

The Supreme Court held that the imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement on a Sub-Inspector of Police was invalid as the charge memo was issued by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who lacked the authority to impose such a penalty. The Court emphasized that under Rule 3(b), only the disciplinary authority competent to impose a penalty can frame and serve the charge memo. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty and reinstate the respondent was upheld, reinforcing the principle that procedural compliance is essential in disciplinary proceedings under the relevant service rules.