R.GOMATHI Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Woman Home Guard by the second respondent on 17/2/2008. One of the co-employees namely, Malaimani was making false allegation against the petitioner. Because of the revenge attitude, the petitioner was not allotted any duty. On 9/8/2013, when the petitioner was called for duty, the Area Commander demanded an apology letter. As dictated by the Area Commander, the petitioner being subordinate to the third respondent, with no other option, has submitted the apology letter. Thereafter, the third respondent failed to allot any duties to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation, dtd. 17/10/2013 to the second respondent to direct the third respondent to allot duties. The petitioner preferred letters to the superior Officers as well as to the Chief Minister's Cell. On receiving the letter, the petitioner was called for an enquiry on 28/10/2013. The petitioner appeared before the third respondent and once again, submitted the apology letter. In spite of the apology letter, the petitioner received the termination order, dtd. 12/11/2013.

(2.) It is the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner has not received any Charge Memo from the second respondent, who is the appointing authority. Without issuing any Charge Memo and without granting any opportunity for submitting any explanation, the petitioner was issued with the termination order. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec. 14(1) of the Tamil Nadu Home Guard Act, 1963 before the first respondent. The appeal was submitted through the Registered Post and the same was received by the first respondent on 3/2/2013. Since no notice was received, the learned counsel for the petitioner sent a letter on 16/6/2014 requesting to inform the enquiry date. But, the first respondent through the learned counsel for the petitioner has sent a letter, dated 27. 06.2014 stating that a reply on the appeal was sent to the petitioner through the second respondent. Now also, a copy was not served to the petitioner. Thereafter, a xerox copy was sent to the petitioner vide letter, dtd. 17/4/2014 which was handed over to the petitioner in person. It is through the letter, dtd. 17/4/2014 only, the petitioner came to know that the first respondent has confirmed the termination order passed by the second respondent .

(3.) The second respondent has filed the counter. It is stated that the petitioner was deputed to bandobust duty for the flower festival in Sivagangai District. But the petitioner has come to the duty in a drunken mood. When the Police Officers and Area Commander visited and checked the bandobust duty, it was found that the petitioner was in unconscious mood due to consumption of liquor. The Charge Memo dtd. 25/10/2013 was issued and an enquiry was conducted on 28. 10.2013. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and has voluntarily accepted her guilt. Thereafter, the third respondent vide report, dtd. 14/11/2013 recommended the petitioner for removal of service from Home Guard immediately. This was confirmed in the appeal order passed by the first respondent also. The counter also states that there is no violation of rules and the petitioner was granted natural justice by following the due process of law.