S. PARAMASIVAM Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities and for a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential and monetary benefits, including restoration of his seniority and service benefits.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he entered into service as Grade II P.C. in the year 1997. Whileso, charges were levelled against the petitioner for alleged his illicit intimacy with another married woman and for the further act of throttling his wife's neck, when she questioned about his nefarious acts. As the above allegations hits at the character and conduct of the petitioner, the respondents proceeded against the petitioner departmentally by initiating enquiry. The petitioner, even before framing of charges, divorce petition in HMOP No.56 of 2009 before the learned Principal Sub Judge, Theni.

(3.) Further to the initiation of departmental action, explanation was called for from the petitioner for which the petitioner submitted his explanation and being not satisfied with the explanation, enquiry was conducted in which the enquiry officer, after examining as many as 7 witnesses, who categorically pointed to the illicit acts of the petitioner, held the charges against the petitioner proved. After providing a copy of the report to the petitioner, further explanation was sought for and not being satisfied with the explanation offered, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 30.03.2010, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 2 nd respondent, which was dismissed confirming the punishment imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 7.7.2010 and the further review before the 3 rd respondent also ended in rejection, vide order dated 01.03.2011, which has led to the filing of the present petition.