R MURALIDURAI Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent dated 23.1.2007 issued in G.O.Rt.No.684 dated 3.4.2000 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 30.6.1998, which in turn confirms the order of the 3rd and 4th respondent passed in their proceedings dated 19.11.1996 and 25.9.1995 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was enlisted as Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Special Police, 4th Batallion on 16.3.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that after joining the police force, due to sickness viz., jaundice, he could not continue the training and absented from duty on eight occasions. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.27 of 1995 on the file of the Hasthampatti Police Station, Salem District under sections 323 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4(1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, read with Section 75 of Tamil Nadu City Police Act and he was placed under suspension by order dated 9.1.1995. A show cause notice was issued on 25.9.1995 for the petitioner's unauthorised absence and involvement in the criminal case seeking explanation as to why petitioner's probation cannot be terminated. Petitioner submitted his explanation and according to the petitioner without considering his explanation, order of termination of probation was passed by the 4th respondent on 25.9.1995. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent, which was rejected on 29.10.1997; revision petition filed before the second respondent was rejected on 30.6.1998; and the mercy petition filed before the first respondent was also rejected on 3.4.2000. The criminal case registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal on 29.3.1996 and a further representation sent to the Government on 30.8.2006 was also rejected on 23.1.2007.

(3.) ALL the above said orders are challenged in this writ petition on the ground that he having affected by jaundice, could not attend the work; that the medical leave applied was accepted by the Commandant; that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be treated as a misconduct unless he is convicted; that without holding any enquiry his probation was terminated by specifically holding that during the period of probation his conduct was found to be indisciplinary; that the termination of probation having been ordered not on the ground of unsuitability and incapability and based on allegations, the procedures contemplated under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 should have been followed and not following the said procedure is not only in violation of the said rules but also violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India; and that, under Explanation -III to Rule 19 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, before terminating the probation of a member of the service on the ground of a specific charge, the department shall frame specific charge/charges and follow the detailed procedure as laid down in Rule 3(b) and the said procedure having not been followed, the petitioner is entitled to get the impugned orders set aside and consequently reinstatement with all benefits.