P JEEVAGAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petitioner, P. Jeevagan, while working as a Ex.Grade-I Police Constable, was issued with a Charge Memo in PR.No.F1/12/05, dated 15.02.2005 under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955, for having illicit intimacy with one woman Tmt.Samundeeswari of Selvapuram at Coimbatore, who was already married and having children and thereby violated Rule 23(2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Conduct Rules, 1964. THE Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime and Traffic), Coimbatore City, who is the appointing authority, issued a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 against the petitioner and after receipt of explanation and being not satisfied, a preliminary enquiry was directed to be conducted. Tmt.Indirani, Woman Inspector, was examined as P.W.1 in the enquiry, and on the basis of the preliminary investigation, the oral enquiry was directed to be conducted. THEreafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Police was appointed to conduct an oral enquiry against the petitioner. Accordingly, oral enquiry was conducted in which 15 witnesses were examined from both sides and 26 documents were produced from both sides and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a further show cause notice was also issued, calling upon the delinquent Police Constable to submit a detailed explanation and on the basis of the further explanation submitted by the petitioner herein, the disciplinary authority having not been satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) THE report submitted by the Enquiry Officer reveals that the Enquiry Officer examined, Tmt.Indirani a Woman Inspector as P.W.1 in a preliminary enquiry with Tmt.Samundeewari in connection with this issue and as per the deposition given by P.W.1, Tmt.Indirani, Woman Inspector, it was stated that the petitioner was having illicit intimacy with Tmt.Samundeeswari. Again, Tmt.Samundeeswari was also examined as P.W.2, who also deposed that the petitioner was having illicit intimacy with her, but he subsequently, discarded her, which made her to file a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City against the petitioner. Further, the mother of Tmt.Samundeeswari, Tmt.Kamalam was also examined as P.W.3. In her evidence she has stated that her daughter was having close illicit intimacy with the petitioner for the past 1-1/2 years. But thereafter, the petitioner and Tmt.Samundeeswari also got married, but P.W.3 did not know where the marriage was held. That apart, one Tmt.Shanthi was also examined as P.W.4 and Thiru.Annamalai was examined as P.W.5, have corroborated the version of P.W.3 and only on the basis of the acceptable evidence let in by all the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner has entered into illicit intimacy and had thereby, violated Rule 23(2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Conduct Rules, 1964. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority also gave one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit his further explanation and having not been satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the order of dismissal from service, was passed, by holding that the petitioner committed the delinquency of moral turpitude in having illicit intimacy with one Tmt.Samundeeswari, a married woman, during the year 2004 and lived as husband and wife and thereby violated under Rule 23 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Conduct Rules, 1964.

(3.) WHILE refuting all the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that in view of the recent amendment made to the Rule 23 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Conduct Rules, 1964, the petitioner's case could not be considered. The relevant amendment is extracted hereunder:-