S MURUGANANTH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was worked as a Grade I Police Constable in the Tirunelveli District. He has filed O.A.No.6569 of 2000 challenging the order dated 05.05.2000 passed by the first respondent and confirmed by the second respondent, vide order, dated 04.08.2000. By the impugned orders, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service for proving misconduct. THE period of suspension from 01.09.1999 to 05.05.2000 was treated to be as a mere suspension.

(2.) ORIGINAL Application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in O.A.No.6569 of 2000 was admitted by the Tribunal on 07.09.2000. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent has filed a reply affidavit, dated 30.10.2000. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.961 of 2007, during the pendency of these proceedings.

(3.) IT is now stated that immediately within five months after the conviction, the petitioner died. But in so far as the Department is concerned, notwithstanding the criminal case, the Department enquiry proceeded in respect of those charges and it was found that in the oral enquiry held nine witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 9 and the evidence pointed out that the petitioner was guilty of both these charges and therefore, agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer, the first respondent found that nine witnesses together with the eleven documents showed that the petitioner was guilty of the charges and since the charges were grave in nature, it requires a maximum punishment and accordingly, the punishment was imposed.