C.UTHAYAKUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Grade II Warder at the Central Prison, Coimbatore in the year 2002. While he was in service, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.1932 of 2004 on the file of the B-4, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore, under Section 20 (b)(1) of the NPDS Act on the allegation that the petitioner was found in possession of 140 grams of Ganja and sought to transport the same into the Central Prison, Coimbatore. Thereafter, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and further disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by placing him under suspension by order dated 08.11.2004. A charge memo was issued by the 3rd respondent on 19.11.2004, stating that the petitioner has violated Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules (hereinafter called 'the Rules') which attracts punishment under Rule 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.12.2004 denying the charges and stating that on the same set of facts a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry. It is the case of the petitioner that all the witnesses were examined on the same day and the petitioner was directed to immediately cross examine all the witnesses, even though the petitioner had requested for assistance of a lawyer. However, the said request was denied and the enquiry was closed on the same day, without any opportunity given to the petitioner for cross examining the witnesses produced by the prosecution. In the meanwhile the criminal case instituted by the prosecution agency ended in acquittal. On the submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority accepted the report and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on 18.01.2011.

(3.) Against the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority, without applying his mind independently to the materials placed on record, confirmed the findings and confirmed the punishment passed by the disciplinary authority by dismissing the appeal vide order dated 24.12.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred revision before the Additional Director General of Police/first respondent herein on 16.02.2012. The 1st respondent rejected the revision by order dated 11.07.2012, and confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present petition has been filed.