P RAGHUNATHAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original petitioner filed O.A.No.3660 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging an order, dated 27.11.1998 passed by the first respondent Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, wherein and by which, he was dismissed from service. THE said order was taken on appeal to the second respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range and the same was also dismissed on 8.2.1999. A further appeal to the third respondent Inspector General of Police, Chennai was also rejected by an order dated 25.11.1999. It is these three orders which are under challenge before the Tribunal.

(2.) THE Tribunal admitted the O.A on 14.6.2001. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent has filed a reply affidavit, dated 7.3.2002. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and renumbered as W.P.No.1215 of 2007. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner had unfortunately passed away on 24.7.2008 and that his legal heirs have come on record, which was ordered by this court on 29.6.2011.

(3.) THE Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He had conducted the enquiry. Based on the enquiry, he found the charges against the petitioner proved. On the basis of the proved minutes, the petitioner was dismissed from service. THErefore, his successive appeal and review were rejected by the appellate authorities as noted already. It was subsequent to the original order of dismissal, the criminal case had ended in acquittal. THEfore, the petitioner sent a representation to the third respondent stating that in view of the acquittal by the criminal court, his case should be considered. But, the third respondent, by order dated 25.11.1999 held that the review petition cannot be entertained. In the departmental enquiry, 13 witnesses were examined. Even the complainant before the criminal court was examined as P.W.5. It was found that P.W.10, Subramanian had admitted that he had signed Ex.P.11 and also filed Exs.P.14 and P.15 during oral enquiry. P.W.10 and P.W.11 had also affixed their signatures in the prosecution document in Ex.P.11. It was on analysis of all these documents, the petitioner was found guilty of charges.