SOURIRAJAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Ex Police Constable, who lost his job on 14.7.1977, is the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner, appointed as a Police Constable in 1963, was working at Singanallur Police Station. On 16.10.1976, he absented himself from sentry duty between 10.05 hours and 13.00 hours, because of the reason, he has to attend a civil case, in the Court of District Judge, Coimbatore. When, his absence from duty was known to the higher officials, a charge memo was issued on 19.10.1976 under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, for the delinquency, directing him to submit the explanation, for the charge. Thereafter, the charge framed under Rule 3(a) against the petitioner, for his absence from sentry duty from 10.05 hours to 13.00 hours on 16.10.1976 at B5 Singanallur Police Station, was dropped. As seen from the records, a fresh charge memo was issued, calling for explanation for the same delinquency, under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. The explanation offered by the petitioner, the then delinquent, was not satisfactory and therefore, an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found to be guilty of the charge framed against him. The appointing authority viz., the second respondent herein, furnishing the copy of the enquiry report, and considering the representation, came to the conclusion that the constable should be dealt with severely, since the delinquent, who was on sentry duty, left the station for his own benefit, and the same should not be viewed leniently. In this view, as per the order dated 14.7.1977, the second respondent, compulsorily retired the petitioner, from service with effect from the date of receipt of the order.

(3.) The appeal and the representation preferred by the petitioner, have not yielded any positive result and therefore, he had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, questioning his compulsory retirement order, in T.A.No.657/89. Originally, when the Tribunal was not constituted, it appears, he has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7677/84 and it was transferred to the Tribunal, taken on file as T.A.No.657/89. The Tribunal by its order dated 2.11.98, confirming the order passed by the second respondent, dismissed the application, thereby giving cause of action for the petitioner to come to this Court, seeking to reinstate him in service with full back wages and all attendant benefits from 15.7.1977.