N SENGODAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O.A.No.4690 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the order, dated 31.5.2001, wherein and by which the first respondent Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. THE Tribunal admitted the OA and by an order, dated 24.7.2001, granted an interim stay against the operation of the punishment of compulsory retirement. Subsequently, the interim stay came to be extended until further orders. Thanks to the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is still continuing in service.

(2.) IT is stated that the petitioner is to retire by 31.3.2010. though the respondents filed an application under M.A.No.8807 of 2001 for vacating the interim order, for the reasons best known to it, the Tribunal did not take up that MP. On notice from the Tribunal, they also filed a reply affidavit, dated 14.8.2001. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and renumbered as W.P.No.2213 of 2007.

(3.) THE petitioner gave his explanation, dated 3.4.2001 and brought to the notice of the respondents that since he was let out on probation, they should not impose any punishment on him. It was also stated that even if the petitioner was convicted by the trial court, it would have resulted in a penalty of imposition of fine and not imprisonment. Also he was let on probation under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.