N.VIJAYARAGHAVAN Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with the impugned order of the first respondent vide proceedings in C. No. C2/P. R10/2010 - DO No. 245/2011 dated 11. 03. 2011 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with backwages and all attendant and monetary benefits with continuity of service.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Dindigul Police Tele-communication Branch from 13. 02. 2006. He was discharging his duty for the past 25 years in various cadre of the respondent Department with unblemished record without any misconduct. Earlier, the petitioner married one Vaijayanthimala in the year 1986 and one female child namely Indra was born in the year 1987. Since from the date of their marriage, his wife used to frequently quarrel with him and there was always indifference in all matters between them, in the year 1993, the petitioner's wife was left at her parents house for second delivery and later his in-law's informed his parents that his wife expired at the time of delivery and immediately, he went to Chennai but his in-laws did not allow the petitioner to enter into their house and told him that his wife is no more and they buried her.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that on 25. 03. 2010, the first respondent issued a letter dated 25. 03. 2010 seeking explanation for the alleged charge that the petitioner has been illegally living with another woman in the Government quarters as husband and wife, after driving his mother out of his house. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner personally appeared before the second respondent on 31. 03. 2010 and given a statement disclosing the truth by denying the said averments. That apart, the petitioner has categorically stated in the reply that the charge-memo was issued only at the instigation of his sister-in-law / Mythili Ragavan, who is a popular political person which is a motivated one and the first respondent acted upon the dictation of the above said Mythili Ragavan. Since the information of the death of Vaijayanthimala as disclosed by her parents was in the year 1993 and the said Vaijayanthimala did not contact him from that day, the petitioner was under the bonafide belief and due to the death of his wife in the year 1993 and the lack of communication for more than 15 years by his in-laws, the petitioner presumed that his wife was not alive.