P S RAMU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on 13.02.1975. On 13.07.1988, by proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner (North), he was suspended from service under Rule 3 (e) (3) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules. Subsequently, a charge memo dated 04.08.1988 was issued to him containing single charge. An enquiry was conducted by the respondents. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, by order dated 12.03.1989 inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. THE petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Police. THE appellate authority rejected the appeal by an order dated 24.05.1989. THErefore, the petitioner filed a review petition to the Director General of Police on 02.12.1989. During the pendency of the review application, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1286 of 1990 challenging the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. THE Tribunal, by an order dated 19.02.1992, quashed the orders of punishment and directed the Commissioner of Police/appellate authority to consider the matter afresh. THEreafter, the order was not complied, hence, Contempt Application No. 237 of 1992 was filed. In the contempt Petition, THE Tribunal passed an order dated 29.01.1993 as follows:- "THE applicant is deemed to have been reinstated pending further proceedings and without prejudice thereto on 01.02.1993. Orders relating to the intervening periods should be passed as part of the disciplinary proceedings or under provisions of F.R."

(2.) IN the meantime, the respondents have filed S.L.P.No. 19950 of 1993 (Civil) before the Honourable Supreme Court against the order dated 19.02.1992 of the Tribunal made in O.A. No. 1286 of 1990. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 25.01.1996.During the pendency of the Special leave Petition, the petitioner was reinstated in service by order dated 02.02.1993 without prejudice to further action in terms of the Order of the Tribunal dated 19.02.1992. The said order also indicated the spell of suspension underwent by the petitioner from 21.07.1988 to 12.03.1989 and out of employment from 13.03.1989 till the petitioner rejoined duty would be regulated on merit and disposed of in deferrence to the directions of the Tribunal. Accordingly, on 14.03.1993, the petitioner joined duty. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Police passed a detialed order dated 30.06.1994 and modified the punishment of compulsory retirement into one of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect on sympathetic grounds. It was also ordered that the effect of reduction of punishment will have its effect on pension. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred a review to the Director General of Police, which was rejected on 19.03.1999. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed O.A. No. 2463 of 2000 before the Tribunal.

(3.) ON perusal of the order passed by the reviewing authority, it is seen that the reviewing authority, after going through the records, has stated that the guilt of the delinquent is proved. In fact, in para-7, the reviewing authority has concluded that the delinquent was also given a personal hearing and even after that no new grounds was made out. It was also recorded that the punishment in question is not excessive. But only in the last paragraph, by mistake, it was recorded that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed only on the ground of delay and not on merits. This is a minor error committed by the reviewing authority but that by itself cannot be taken into consideration because the reviewing authority, after recording that no fresh grounds were urged for re-consideration in the matter rejected it by recording reasons. Therefore, it cannot be stated that reviewing authority has not considered the review at all in a proper perspective. Hence, WP No. 49460 of 2006 is dismissed. No costs. WP No. 36371 of 2006