M JAYAKUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein seeks for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode/third respondent herein, made in P.R.J1/2/97, dated 03.06.2002, and the proceedings of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore/second respondent herein, made in C.No.D2/A.P./30/2002, dated 20.11.2002, by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently, to direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner as Police Constable with all consequential attendant service and monetary benefits including seniority, pay fixation, promotion and arrears of pay due to the petitioner.

(2.) LEARNED Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the petitioner was appointed as Police Constable Grade II on 25.05.1988, he was allotted to Erode District. After 8 years of service, he was posted to 'Q' Branch, Erode, and continued in the said post till 10.11.1996, and subsequently, on 11.11.1996, he has given passport to one Rameswaran at Mandapam Camp to assist the 'Q' Branch staff there for surveillance. Thereafter, he was reported back for duty at 'Q' Branch in Erode on 18.11.1996. After joining the post at Erode, the Q Branch Sub-Inspector instructed the petitioner to go to Bhavanisagar Ceylon Refugee Camp to maintain vigil against infiltration of LTTE cadres. In the meanwhile, on the basis of confessional statement of one Mr.Prakash, dated 20.11.1996, the petitioner was wrongly implicated in criminal cases filed for the offences under Section 379 IPC in Crime No.841/96 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karungalpalayam, Crime No.2089/96, Crime No.2093/96 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of police, Erode Tow Police Station and in Crime No.702/96 on the file of Erode South Police Station, and as a result, he was also placed under suspension on 22.12.1996, for which, he was also issued with charge memo in P.R.No.2/97, under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules, 1955, with the following charges;

(3.) FURTHER, it was submitted that, when the petitioner himself approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, after issuance of charge memo, by filing O.A.No.3661/97, the Triubnal, by order dated 20.05.1997, has granted an order of interim stay for two weeks and the same was also extended till 21.07.1997, and subsequently, the same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 28.09.2001. Since the Tribunal has granted an order of interim stay, the enquiry could not be conducted, therefore, the delay in conducting oral enquiry was due to the reasons directly attributed by the petitioner and not on the part of the respondents. However, oral enquiry was resumed and completed on 20.03.2002, hence, it was submitted that the Enquiry Officer had rightly held the charges as proved based on the evidence and documents adduced during the oral enquiry.