JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to take appropriate action against the erred officials and other culprits in view of the report submitted by the third respondent made in C.No.12/ADSP (C)/TAN/2011, dated 31.03.2011 and consequently pay punitive damages of RS.10 lakhs to the petitioner within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to initiate appropriate action as against the official respondents and other culprits, based upon the report submitted by the third respondent on 31.03.2011 and consequently pay punitive damages of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, she and her mother are residing in the petition mentioned address for more than thirty years. Due to family dispute, her father's sister wanted to grab the property after the demise of her father. Hence, she has instituted O.S.No.594 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, as against her relatives for the relief of partition and separate possession. While the said suits were pending, her Aunt had made some arrangements to dispossess the petitioner and her mother from the property, on the basis of some alleged sale agreement entered into between her Aunt and the tenth respondent herein. The hooligans and his allies had threatened the petitioner and her mother with serious consequences and directed them to vacate the premises on 18.11.2010. Though the said fact was brought to the notice of the police officials, the complaint was closed as accessible dispute. 3. The petitioner has further alleged that again on 24.12.2010, the hooligans, along with twenty other persons forcibly entered into the house property and obtained signatures in cheque leaves, blank papers and blank stamp papers forcibly. Though he contacted the sixth respondent, Sub- Inspector of Police for immediate action, he did not respond. According to the petitioner, on 29.12.2010, the petitioner's mother was forcibly taken to Canara Bank and opened a joint account and obtained signature from her for depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The hooligans had physically abused the petitioner and throw them in the street, under the guise of an agreement with the help of police officials, who had failed to initiate any appropriate action. The hooligans had physically abused the petitioner and throw them in the street, under the guise of an agreement with the help of police officials, who had failed to initiate any appropriate action. Though these issues were brought to the knowledge of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kumbakonam, he did not initiate any action either against his subordinates or against to the said hooligans. Hence, the petitioner was forced to sent a legal notice on 21.12.2010. Based upon the complaint given by the petitioner, the third respondent herein had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report, dated 31.03.2011, under which, he has recommended for strict disciplinary action as against the respondents 5 to 7 police officials. Since no action was initiated pursuant to the said report, the present writ petition has been filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to initiate action, based upon the said enquiry report. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had contended that despite pendency of a civil suit, some rowdy elements had threatened and thrown away the petitioner and her mother from the property illegally. The police officials instead of taking action as against the rowdy elements, have colluded with them and only with their support, all these illegal activities have taken place. Hence, he prayed for appropriate action as against the official respondents and for payment of compensation. 5. The third respondent herein had filed a counter contending that appropriate disciplinary action have been initiated as against all the official respondents. As against the seventh respondent, a full-fledged enquiry was conducted and she was imposed with a punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for two years with cumulative effect. On appeal, the action was dropped by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur range in his proceedings, dated 31.03.2013. As far as the case of the fifth respondent, Balasubramanian is concerned, he was issued with a show cause notice under Section 3(a) for exercising poor supervision over the work of the Sub Inspector. He was awarded with a punishment of censure on 03.05.2011 and no appeal was preferred as against the said order. As far as the case of the sixth respondent is concerned, he had retired on 31.03.2011. The report of the third respondent is also dated, 31.03.2011. Hence, before any disciplinary action could be initiated, the sixth respondent had already retired. He was awarded with a punishment of censure on 03.05.2011 and no appeal was preferred as against the said order. As far as the case of the sixth respondent is concerned, he had retired on 31.03.2011. The report of the third respondent is also dated, 31.03.2011. Hence, before any disciplinary action could be initiated, the sixth respondent had already retired. However, for initiating disciplinary action under Rule 9 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, a charge memo was issued and a departmental action was initiated against him. However, as per the orders of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, dated 11.12.2018, the same was cancelled, on the ground that the sixth respondent had already attained superannuation on 31.03.2011 and the occurrence is said to have taken place on 24.12.2010 and hence, departmental action cannot be initiated at that point of time. 6. As far as the allegations as against the private respondents are concerned, an FIR was registered in Crime No.162 of 2012 on the file of the Kumbakonam, West Police Station and a final report has also been filed before the Judicial Magistrate II, Kumbakonam on 06.04.2012. Now, the case is pending in C.C.No.226 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Kumbakonam and the same is pending for trial. 7. The official respondents have further contended that disciplinary action has been initiated as against erring officials and as against the private respondents also in accordance with law. Hence, the contention of the writ petitioner that no disciplinary action was initiated as against the police officials are not factually correct. 8. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit contending that no proper action has been initiated as against the police officials. One of them has been punished only with censure and action as against other respondents have already been dropped. Hence, no stringent action has been initiated, based upon the report submitted by the third respondent. Hence, she prayed for allowing the writ petition. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side. Admittedly, a civil suit is pending between the writ petitioner and her relatives in O.S.No.594 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, for the relief of partition and separate possession. Hence, she prayed for allowing the writ petition. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side. Admittedly, a civil suit is pending between the writ petitioner and her relatives in O.S.No.594 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, for the relief of partition and separate possession. Defendants in the said suit (Aunt of the writ petitioner and the grand-mother of the writ petitioner), namely, Rukmani Ammal is said to have executed a sale agreement in favour of the tenth respondent herein. Based upon the said sale agreement, they have forcibly vacated the writ petitioner and her mother from the disputed premises. Allegations are made in the writ affidavit as against the private respondents as well as the police officials. The allegation as against the police officials are mainly on the ground that they have not initiated any proper action as against the private respondents, who had forcibly vacated the writ petitioner and her mother. There are no allegations as against the police officials that they had interfered in the civil dispute or they have visited the house of the writ petitioner and helped the private respondents in forcibly evicting the writ petitioner and her family. The allegations as against the respondents 5 to 7 are clearly to the effect that they have not registered any criminal case as against the private respondents and they have not protected the rights of the writ petitioner. The complaints filed by the writ petitioner has been closed by the said respondents 5 to 7, on the ground that it relates to a civil dispute. 10. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to initiate action as against the official and private respondents, based upon the report submitted by the third respondent, dated 31.03.2011. A perusal of the above said enquiry report indicates that based upon some sale agreement from the grand-mother of the writ petitioner, the private respondents have trespassed into the property and they have encroached upon the same. The third respondent has further found that the official respondents are said to have given support for the same. The enquiry report further indicates that the petitioner and her mother have not voluntarily vacated the property and they have forcibly evicted from the property in dispute. The third respondent has further found that the official respondents are said to have given support for the same. The enquiry report further indicates that the petitioner and her mother have not voluntarily vacated the property and they have forcibly evicted from the property in dispute. The said report has recommended for appropriate criminal action as against the private respondents and also for stringent departmental action as against the respondents 5 to 7. 11. Based upon the above said enquiry report, already criminal prosecution has been initiated as against the respondents 8 to 11 in Crime No.162 of 2012 on the file of the Kumbakonam, West Police Station under Section 506(ii), 147, 148, 448 and 294(b) IPC on 06.04.2012. A final report has also been submitted to the Judicial Magistrate II, Kumbakonam and it was taken on file in C.C.No.114 of 2015. Thereafter, the case has been transferred to the Judicial Magistrate I, Kumbakonam on 26.09.2019 and renumbered as C.C.No.226 of 2019. The said criminal case is pending trial. Hence, the recommendation made in the enquiry report as against the private respondents has already been complied with by the respondents 1 and 2 and hence, no further orders are required as against the private respondents. 12. As far as the respondents 5 to 7 are concerned, the enquiry report has recommended stringent departmental action as against them. The report is dated 31.03.2011. On the same date, the sixth respondent had retired. Hence, respondents 1 and 2 were not in a position to initiate any departmental action. Though initially proceedings were initiated under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, it had to be dropped on the ground that the occurrence had taken place in December 2010 and hence, the Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules cannot be invoked. 13. As far as the departmental proceedings as against the fifth respondent is concerned, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated as against him under Section 3 (a) for exercising poor supervision over the work. After enquiry, he was imposed with a punishment of censure by the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, which was not challenged by the fifth respondent. 14. As far as the case of the seventh respondent is concerned, charges under Section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955, was issued to the said respondent on 28.06.2011. After enquiry, he was imposed with a punishment of censure by the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, which was not challenged by the fifth respondent. 14. As far as the case of the seventh respondent is concerned, charges under Section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955, was issued to the said respondent on 28.06.2011. After enquiry, the charges were held to be proved and a punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for two years with cumulative effect was awarded by the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy. However, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, by his proceedings, dated 31.03.2013, had interfered by way of an appeal and dropped all the proceedings on a technical ground that reduction in time scale cannot be imposed, after the introduction of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2009. The Deputy Inspector General of Police ought not to have dropped the proceedings but should have remitted the matter to the original authority. The appellate authority could have imposed an alternative punishment, if he had found fault with reduction in time scale cannot be imposed by the original authority. However, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range had simply dropped the proceedings as against the seventh respondent, despite the preliminary enquiry, dated 31.03.2011, by the third respondent has found prima facie material as against the seventh respondent. The enquiry officer has also found the seventh respondent guilty. The appellate authority has only taken a different view with regard to the nature of punishment. In such circumstances, this Court feels that the proceedings as against the seventh respondent which were closed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, by his proceedings, dated 27.04.2012, should be reopened and appropriate punishment shall be imposed upon the seventh respondent, after giving due opportunity to the seventh respondent. 15. The prayer in the writ petition is only for initiation of appropriate proceedings as against the official and private respondents. In view of the discussions as stated supra, already proceedings have been initiated as against the private respondents and they are pending in criminal trial. As far as the proceedings as against the official respondents are concerned, except the seventh respondent, the sixth respondent had already retired and the fifth respondent has already been imposed with a punishment of censure. In view of the discussions as stated supra, already proceedings have been initiated as against the private respondents and they are pending in criminal trial. As far as the proceedings as against the official respondents are concerned, except the seventh respondent, the sixth respondent had already retired and the fifth respondent has already been imposed with a punishment of censure. Only as against the seventh respondent, the proceedings have been dropped on a technical ground. Hence, this Court finds that the consequential prayer for punitive damages do not deserve any consideration. The observations in the writ petition shall not have any bearing upon the civil suit in O.S.No.594 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam. 16. With the above said observations, the writ petition stands partly allowed with regard to reopening of disciplinary proceedings as against the seventh respondent herein. In all other respects, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.