SOWRIMUTHU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 5th respondent in proceedings in O.A.2835/1992 dtd. 7/11/2002 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and for consequential orders and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Police Constable and was attached to the North Raiding Party of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Madras Washermenpet Range from 1/8/1978. Whileso, the petitioner on 1/3/1979 at about 02.00 a.m. was found in the company of a woman by name Karumari of questionable character in her residence in a drunken state, Tvl.M.S.Madhavan, S.Mani, K.Govindan, P.Manalan office bearers of Dr.Ambedkar Gudisai Vaazhvor Podhunala Manram, Korukkupet, Madras found him and produced him before the Sub Inspector of Police, Washermenpet. A criminal case in Cr.No.328/79 was registered against the petitioner in H5, New Washermenpet Police Station. The petitioner was also examined by a Medical Officer of the Government Stanley Medical College Hospital, at about 5.50pm on 1/3/1979 and he gave a Medical Certificate that the petitioner had consumed alcohol and was intoxicated. The criminal case in Cr.No.328/79 under Sec. 4(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act was later dropped in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.2531, Home Department 1979. Though the criminal case was withdrawn, the departmental proceedings were initiated by issuing a charge memo in which two charges were framed as follows: (1) Grave misconduct and unbecoming conduct on the part of the member of the police force in being found in the company of one Karumari, a woman of questionable character at about 2.00 hours on 1/3/1979 at the later's house at Senniamman Koil Street, Korukkupet Madras and (2) to have been in an intoxicated state. Enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, after following the due procedure. In the enquiry proceedings 7 witnesses were examined and documents were marked. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings but neither examined any witnesses on his behalf nor did he file any documents. The Enquiry Officer based on the evidence on record and documents filed, found that the charge No.1 was not proved, but charge No.2 was proved. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), North, imposed the penalty of removal from service against the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court against the order of dismissal from service by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No.7879 of 1983, which was dismissed by this Court on 24/2/1984, giving the petitioner an opportunity to file an appeal against the dismissal order. The petitioner thereafter submitted the appeal on 9/3/1984 and the third respondent vide order dtd. 15/5/1994 rejected the same. The petitioner filed a Review Petition on 13/6/1984 and the same was also rejected by the Inspector General of Police vide proceedings dtd. 19/1/1985. Thereafter the petitioner sent petitions to the Government, which were also rejected vide G.O.Ms.No.1299, Home (Police-VII) Department dtd. 21/5/1986. The petitioner thereafter filed the original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2835 of 1992, which was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal against which, the above writ petition is filed.

(3.) It was the petitioner's case that a false case was foisted against him and that once the first charge was held to be not proved, the second charge would automatically fall. According to the petitioner in the absence of Forensic report on his blood and urine samples the respondents could not have found that the petitioner was intoxicated. The justification for presence of alcohol given by the petitioner was that he had consumed tonic mixed with alcohol as prescribed by the medical practitioner. The petitioner further relied on the discrepancies in the oral evidence of the departmental witnesses to establish that the charge against him were not proved.