LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-244

V VEZHAVENDAN Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

Decided On April 19, 2010
V. VEZHAVENDAN Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE VILLUPURAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Original Application No.9026 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records connected with D.O.714/98-H1/PR/119/98 dated 23.07.1998 of the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant and monetary benefits. On abolition of the Tribunal, the original application stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No. 33755 of 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner was temporarily appointed as an Armed Reserve Police Constable at Virudhachalam by the proceedings dated 25.09.1997 of the Commandant, TSP, Avadi, Chennai. In the appointment order, it was mentioned that it is a temporary post and if he has not given any correct information and if it is found to be false at a later date, he may be terminated from service without any notice. Later on, it was found by the Department that the petitioner, even prior to entering into service, involved himself in a case in Cr.No. 440 of 1994 under Sections 294 and 324 IPC for having involved in criminal activities and the said case was pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate I, Virudachalam. As the said fact was suppressed by the petitioner and it is against the norms for selection in the police force, the petitioner was placed under suspension. THEreafter, the charge memo was issued and after enquiry, he was terminated from service on 23.07.1998 of the second respondent.

(3.) HEARD both sides. In this case, since the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case has been suppressed by him and later on, it was found by the department, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority after affording sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to putforth his defence has held that inasmuch as the petitioner has suppressed his involvement in a criminal case, he is not entitled to continue in the disciplinary force and terminated him from service.