GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. S.VEL RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was heard along with Civil Appeal No. 4187 of 1994 but we are disposing of the same by a separate judgment.

(2.) THE respondent is a Head Constable and as such a member of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. On July 20, 1984 he was served with a charge memo for an act of misconduct committed on July 7, 1984 and a departmental enquiry was thereafter initiated against him. The charge held proved and by way of punishment he was reverted to the lower grade, that is, from Head Constable to Police Constable Grade I. He appealed against that order. As the Appellate Authority was of the view that the punishment imposed upon the respondent was very lenient it issued a show case notice to him for enhancement of the penalty. His appeal was dismissed and by way of punishment he was compulsorily retired. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras challenging not only the punishment imposed upon him but also initiation of the enquiry against him. That petition was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and was numbered as T.A. No. 271 of 1992.

(3.) THE Tribunal held that initiation of the enquiry against the respondent was bad because the charge memo was issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was not an appointing and it is well-settled principle of law that only the appointing authority can take disciplinary action and that the said power cannot be delegated. On merits, the Tribunal considered the evidence as if it was sitting in appeal and held that the evidence was inconsistent and it was not proved "beyond all doubts that he had consumed prohibited liquor". It also held that neither consumption of alcohol by a member of the police force nor appearance in 'mufti' in the police station can be considered as an act of misconduct. It also held that the Appellate Authority had not conducted the enquiry in the prescribed manner before enhancing the punishment and, therefore, the order passed by him was also bad. It, therefore, allowed the application, quashed the impugned order of punishment and directed the authorities to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits.