B LAWRENCE KANNAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the G.O.(3D)No.37 Home (Pol.IV) Department, dated 18.5.2007 and G.O.(2D)No.152 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 26.3.2009 and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was directly recruited as Grade-II Police Constable and posted at Armed Reserve, Chennai City in the year 1983; that he was transferred to the Law and Order Wing in the year 1986; and that, he was awarded with about 100 rewards. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Chennai, stating that the petitioner along with one Sub-Inspector viz., Ragavachari foisted a false case against one Kochumon; that the petitioner and the said Ragavachari were proceeded with a common disciplinary proceeding in TDP case No.18 of 1997 for five charges; that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 and the said Ragavachari was arrayed as accused No.1 in the said TDP case; and that three charges are relating to the petitioner. On 15.9.1991 the charge memo was issued and the petitioner appeared through his counsel and defended the case. Nine witnesses were examined and ten exhibits were marked on the side of the respondent. Petitioner has taken a stand that he has not demanded and accepted any illegal gratification from the Complainant Kochumon, nor relieved him from the criminal case and as he has no power either to register the case or drop the action and that the accused No.1 in TDP case i.e, the Sub-Inspector of Police alone is competent to do the same. According to the petitioner, the bribe amount was thrust in his hands to complete the arranged trap. THE said complainant viz., Kochumon was not examined. THE report was filed in the TDP case on 2.3.1999 and stated that the charges were not proved against the petitioner. THE Government disagreed with the said findings given by the TDP and issued a show cause notice on 22.2.2001 and held that charge No.1 i.e., receiving a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the said Kochumon on behalf of the Sub-Inspector of Police appears to be established. THE petitioner submitted his explanation on 9.4.2001 and without considering the same the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.40 Home Department, dated 9.4.2004 and held that the said charge is proved and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the TDP case petitioner having been found exonerated the differing view taken by the respondent insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is unjust and there is a procedural violation which was also taken note of by this Court in W.P.No.32199 of 2005 order dated 30.1.2006 and even after remand the very same punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed and therefore the earlier order passed by this Court is not complied with. THE learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner only received the cover without knowing the contents of the cover from the complainant on behalf of the Sub Inspector of Police as the said Complainant is known to the Sub-Inspector of Police and therefore he cannot be blamed for any delinquency.