K. KUMARESAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. Facts of the Case:

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as Grade-II Police Constable on 4/1/2006. He was posted at Special Action Force, Veerapuram, Cehnnai and transferred to Armed Reserve, Chennai City in the year 2009 and further transferred to Law and Order in the year 2011 and worked as constable in the Virugambakkam Police Station. A charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner in proceedings dtd. 2/2/2015, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The charge against the writ petitioner was that on 27/6/2014 at about 1930 hours, the petitioner along with another Head Constable Mr.G.Raja went to the Women Hostel namely Miracle Home Care situated at No.5, Abirami Nagar, 2nd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai - 92, and unilaterally conducted an enquiry. Again the petitioner along with the said Head Constable on 28/6/2014 at 04:00 p.m. went to the said Women Hostel in drunken mode and misbehaved with the women, who were staying in the hostel, threatened them and sexually harassed them and behaved in an indecent manner and committed an act of misconduct.

(3.) The petitioner submitted his explanations, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the written statement of the defence submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry and after affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner, submitted his enquiry report. Along with the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner on 30/12/2015, asking him to submit further objections on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his further objections on 19/1/2016 and thereafter, the 2nd respondent / Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service in proceedings dtd. 26/1/2016. The petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 1st respondent on 20/2/2016 and the said Appeal was also rejected by the 1st respondent in proceedings dtd. 22/7/2016. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner: