G ROBINSON Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O.A.No.2288 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the order dated 13.07.000 passed by the first respondent- Superintendent of Police and confirmed by the order of the second respondent dated 22.11.2000. By the impugned order the petitioner was visited the penalty of compulsory retirement.

(2.) THE Original Application was admitted on 28.03.2001. Pending the Original Application, an order of interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the interim stay was directed to be continued. THE respondents did not take any steps to vacate the interim order. On the contrary, they had filed an application for fixing an early date. On notice from the Tribunal, a detailed reply affidavit was filed by the respondents.

(3.) FOR having absented from duty without obtaining leave or permission, a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the TNPSS (D & A) Rules was framed in P.R.No.51/2000 against the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner was "Gross neglect of duty in having absented without any leave or permission". An enquiry was directed to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil. After conducting an oral enquiry and getting the petitioner's reply on the defence enquiry, the Enquiry officer drew up the minute on 14.06.2000 holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. Agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, viz., the first respondent by his order dated 14.06.2000 directed him to make a further representation. But the petitioner did not make any representation within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the order dated 13.07.2000 awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement from service was passed against him with effect from 14.07.2000.