S RAJENDRAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner was appointed, as a Grade II Police Constable, in the year, 1972. Thereafter, he was promoted, as an Inspector of Police, on 19.05.2010, and had been posted, at Bangalowputhur Police Station, Erode District. He was allowed to retire from service, on 30.09.2011, by an order of the second respondent, dated 27.09.2011, without prejudice to the departmental enquiry, which had been initiated against him, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

(3.) WHILE so, the second respondent had issued the impugned charge memo, dated 24.09.2011, alleging that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities in conducting the investigation, in Crime No.344/2002. The said Charge Memo had been issued by the second respondent, after an unexplained delay of seven years from the date of the occurrence of the alleged incident. It has also been stated that the petitioner had been allowed to retire from service, on 30.09.2011, on his attaining the age of superannuation. In such circumstances, the impugned charge memo issued by the second respondent, on 24.09.2011, is arbitrary, improper and invalid in the eye of law.