R.AYYAR Vs. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed seeking for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings G.O.(D)No.653, dated 21.06.2010 and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings D.O.No.420/2011, dated 23.07.2011 and the consequential order of recovery passed by the fifth respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.J4/38354/2011, dated 22.08.2011 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Police Constable Grade-II in the year 1997. While he was working at V&AC Department, Madurai, a case was registered against him in Crime No.7 of 2004, on the file of the Kulithalai All Women Police Station, Karur, for the alleged offences under Sections 509, 506(1) I.P.C., and Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, 1998, based on the complaint given by one Parvathy. Later another case was registered against the petitioner, on the complaint issued by one Siva Subramaniyan-father of Parvathi, in Cr.No.466 of 2004, for the alleged offences under Sections 417, 376, 506(2) and 306 I.P.C. and both cases were tried together in C.C.No.21 of 2005 and S.C.No.115 of 2005 on the file of the Sessions Court, Trichirapalli and the same were ended in acquittal on 03.06.2007.

(3.) When the matter stood thus, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 09.11.2004 alleging that he was involved in a criminal case. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.2418 of 2006 and this Court, vide order dated 14.03.2006 issued a direction to the respondent to revoke the suspension order. Thereafter, a charge memo came to be issued under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 and after affording opportunity to the petitioner, enquiry was conducted and for the proven charges, the petitioner was removed from service and the said order of removal was also confirmed by the appellate authority. However, the revisional authority modified the order of removal into that of postponement of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, vide order dated 02.07.2009.