J.JAYARAJ Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner challenges an order of removal from service passed originally on 24/7/2007 by the disciplinary authority, which was affirmed in appeal by order dtd. 9/10/2007 and upon review by order dtd. 18/1/2008.

(2.) The petitioner joined the services of the police department as a Special Police Constable in the year 2003. A charge memo was issued against the petitioner on 24/4/2007 containing four charges. The first charge was that he married T.Sasirekha (Sasirekha) while her marriage with T.Venkatesan was subsisting, but the second and most significant charge against the petitioner was that he had married T.Sasirekha on 15/11/2004 at a temple in Tiruverkadu and suppressed such marriage and married another person, M.Parvathi (Parvathi), on 18/2/2005. The other charges relate to causing embarrassment and disrepute to an organization like the police that places great value on good conduct and discipline by entering into two marriages and fathering children through both women, as also by receiving dowry in the form of jewellery, a Hero Honda motorbike and other items at the time of the second marriage. The admitted position is that the petitioner was provided an opportunity to respond to such charge memo. At the inquiry, the record shows that evidence was adduced and the petitioner was provided an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Eventually, on the basis of the inquiry report and upon consideration of the petitioner's representation in respect thereof and other material aspects, the disciplinary authority by order dtd. 24/7/2007 imposed the penalty of 'removal from service' upon the petitioner. This was carried in appeal by the petitioner and such appeal was dismissed by order dtd. 9/10/2007. The petitioner presented a revision petition against such order and the said revision petition came to be dismissed on 18/1/2008. These orders of dismissal are impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the principal charge against the petitioner, namely, that he had married Sasirekha on 15/11/2004 was not proved. In order to substantiate such contention, learned counsel referred to the appellate order, which records the delinquent's contention that there was no documentary or other evidence to prove that the petitioner had married Sasirekha. According to learned counsel, the conclusion of the appellate authority that bi-gomy (sic) is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt is ex facie erroneous after noticing and not rejecting with reasons the contention that there is no documentary or other evidence to prove such marriage. In addition, it is contended that the appellate authority and the authority in revision did not apply their mind independently to the evidence on record. By relying upon the orders of the appellate authority and the authority in revision, learned counsel contended that the orders of such authorities clearly evidence non-application of mind and mechanical affirmation of the order of the disciplinary authority.