M MUTHUPANDIAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was issued with a charge memo containing two charges. 1. Reprehensible conduct in having left his Headquarters without prior permission while on ML on 28.03.92. 2.Highly reprehensible conduct in having waylaid and assaulted one Nellai Muthupandian S/o Ulaganathan of Urkadu Village with hands and tore his shirts and banian in drunken mood on 28.03.92 at 7.45 pm near Fire Service Station, Ambasamudram. After receiving the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges. Having not satisfied with the explanation, oral enquiry was held and the following 7 witnesses were examined. 1. Nellai Muthupandian S/o Ulaganathan Urkadu 2.Arumugam S/o Palanisamy THEvar, Ambai 3. Natarajan S/o Mookathaver, Urkadu 4. Samikannu, Sub Inspector of Police, Ambai 5. Thillai Chithambara, Govt. Medical Officer, Ambai 6. Tr.Samudrakani, Sub Inspector of Police, VK Puram 7. Tr. Karpagavinayagam, Inspector of Police, Ambasamudram. After completing the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him. THE disciplinary authority, after calling for explanation and being not satisfied with the second explanation, imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent/Deputy Inspector General of Police, and the same was also rejected. As against that, a review petition was filed before the 3rd respondent/Inspector General of Police and the same was also rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the present OA has been filed on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should not have been given the major punishment of compulsory retirement, when he has rendered 21 years of unblemished service. In his further submission, he sought modification of the order of compulsory retirement into a minor punishment, since the major penalty of compulsory retirement is not commensurate with the allegation levelled against the petitioner. On that basis, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) THE petitioner, while serving as Police Constable, not only left his Headquarters without prior permission, while on medical leave on 28.03.92, but, the petitioner waylaid and assaulted one Nellai Muthupandian and tore his shirts and banian in drunken mood on the same day at 7.45 p.m. near Fire Service Station, Ambasamudram. After the said incident, the affected person made a criminal complaint against the petitioner in Ambasamudram Police Station and the same was also registered in Cr.No.178/92 under Sections 341, 323 IPC. After registration of the same, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner on the file of the criminal court. In the meanwhile, since the petitioner has assaulted one Nellai Muthupandian by tearing his shirts and banian in drunken mood on 28.03.92, he was issued with a charge memo. After receiving the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation. THE disciplinary authority, having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, examined 7 witnesses as mentioned above. P.W.1 has stated to the effect that the incident occurred on 28.03.92 at 7.45 p.m. while he was proceeding from Urkadu Village to Ambasamudran on a bicycle and the signed statement of P.W.1, dated 28.03.92 is marked as Ex.P1. In his statement, he has deposed that on 28.03.92 at 7.45 p.m., when he was proceeding from Urkadu to Ambai, he was badly assaulted by the petitioner by twisting his hand and beating him with his hands on his back and caused simple injuries to him in front of Valarmathi tea stall. Again, one Arumugam, owner of the tea stall, was also examined as P.W2. In his deposition, he has stated that when he intervened and separated the complainant from the petitioner in order to prevent further incident, P.W2 has clearly mentioned that the petitioner was in a drunken mood in mufty dress. After examining 7 witnesses, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding him guilty of the charges levelled against him. THE disciplinary authority, having not satisfied with the second explanation offered by the petitioner, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, but the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent. As against that, the petitioner preferred review petition before the 3rd respondent. After considering the case of the petitioner on the basis of the available material, the 3rd respondent thought fit to affirm the order of compulsory retirement by holding that the petitioner cannot be shown any indulgence. THE said order is now under challenge.