UDAYAPPAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the police Department on 3rd October, 1949. He was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and was working in Tanjore East District. On 5th August, 1971, he was posted as Inspector of M2 Police Station. He took up the investigation of Crime No. 2147 of 1971 on 18th August, 1971. This had its origin on a complaint preferred on 29th July, 1971, by the Shed Master of Madras Port Trust that stainless steel sheets were stolen from Madras harbour and that out of five cases of stainless steel sheets landed from S. S. Chilka on 6th July, 1971, two cases were missing. Therefore, there was a complaint; it was registered earlier to the petitioner taking charge of the case. He conducted the investigation and found out that one Narasinga Moorthy Nadar had received the stolen property from the thieves and hence conducted a search on 24th August, 1971, of the premises belonging to him, and stainless steel was, found. A mahazar was prepared which was signed by him. The case diary pertaining to the seizure was sent to the Commissioner of Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police and both of them have initialed the diary on 25th August, 1971, i. e. , the very next day. While this being the position, it appears that Narasinga Moorthy Nadar had filed a petition to the Inspector-General of Police making false allegations against him stating that he had forced him to pay Rs. 40,000 by 30th August, 1971, and that the stainless steel sheets were purchased from market by the petitioner and the documents were prepared after 30th August, 1971, as though the sheets were recovered from him on a search conducted on 30th August, 1971. On the basis of the complaint made by him, charges were framed against the petitioner and he denied the charges.

(2.) THIS resulted in G. O. Ms. No. 1430, Home, dated 12th June, 1974, being passed directing the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings Madras, to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner. It held an enquiry and found that all the three charges have been proved and recommended the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service. Thereupon, a show-cause memo dated 17th March, 1977, was served on the petitioner to show cause against the provisional conclusion to dismiss the petitioner. He submitted elaborate explanations pointing out that when Narasinga Moorthy Nadar himself had applied to the High Court for return of the stainless steel sheets as belonging to him, his claim that they had been purchased by the petitioner and foisted upon him, is baseless, false and the material documentary evidence marked as Exts. D. 20 to D. 24 on this aspect had not even been referred to by the Tribunal, knowing quite well that by referring to those documents, it would not be possible for it to hold the petitioner guilty. He had also disputed the finding arrived at on all the three charges. In spite of elaborate representations made, the impugned order was passed, after consulting not only the Public Service Commission but also the Inspector-General of Police, which opinion had weighed with the respondent in arriving at the conclusion to dismiss the petitioner, and which is not contemplated under the Rules. Against this order of dismissal passed on 1st July, 1978, this writ petition is filed on the ground that it is vitiated by several irregularities and illegalities.

(3.) MR. Krishnamani, counsel for the petitioner, at the outset contends that the opinion taken from the Inspector-General of Police, which is read as item No. 5 in the impugned order, is contrary to the Rules framed under Art. 309 and it has influenced the decision of the Government and hence, the impugned order is also vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.