R GOVINDARAJULU Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. No. 545 of 1979 is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed under Fundamental Rule 56 (d) on 13th October, 1977. As the time of passing of the order, he was functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Tamil Nadu Police Service.

(2.) PETITIONER entered service as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 1st September, 1948, and he attained the age of 50 years on 14th July, 1977. A charge memo, dated 25th February, 1976 was framed under rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules to which he submitted a memorial on 28th February, 1976 to the Inspector-General of Police stating that he would prefer proceedings being referred to Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal instead of being tried by departmental officers. On 27th May, 1976, he was informed that his request cannot be conceded, as none of the charges against him specifically involves corruption. Therefore the enquiry was directed to be held by the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri. Later on it was transferred to the file of the Superintendent of Police, Salem, by an administrative order. On 24th October, 1976, he issued a charge memo. to the petitioner listing out the charges in respect of which he proposed to hold an enquiry.

(3.) MR. V. P. Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, if an order of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 (d) results in any stigma being attached, or after the order is passed proceedings are taken to deprive the benefits assured and to expose the retired public servant to ignominy, aspersions etc., then the order of compulsory retirement deserves to be set aside. His contention is rested on the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings in spite of the order of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 (d), and when such proceedings are continued by the State, in the minds of the public a firm impression has already been drawn that because of the charges which are being further pursued or proceeded with, the order of compulsory retirement had been passed. He claimed that when the Officer has maintained a good record immediately preceding the impugned order, and even according to the respondent when no charge of corruption was involved as against the petitioner, the impugned order had been passed without the required materials and further it was punitive in character.