NAGARAJAN Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. A.K. Baskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondents. The petitioner, a Hawildar in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion, has filed this writ petition, challenging the order passed by the first respondent in G.O. (2D). No. 189, dated 28.3.2006 and for consequential direction to restore all benefits, which were withheld by the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner, while working as Hawildar in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion at Rajapalayam, was involved in a criminal case in Crime No. 1492 of 2003, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli for offence under Sections 448, 294(b), 342 and 324 IPC. Along with the petitioner, his father-in-law and brother-in-law were also accused and it was alleged that all three of them attacked one Mr. Rajeshkumar son of Ganapathi. The petitioner was placed under suspension, by order dated 28.10.2003, and a charge memo was issued to the petitioner containing the following charges:

(3.) The petitioner submitted his explanation and an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the charges. Five witnesses were examined by the Department and opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine those witnesses, however, the petitioner did not examine any witness. In the mean time, a final report was filed by the Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station and the same was taken on file as C.C. No. 34 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate IV, Tirunelveli and the petitioner was arrayed as the third accused in the said criminal case. The Criminal Court by judgment dated 20.10.2004, acquitted the petitioner and other accused by giving benefit of doubt. During the pendency of the criminal case, the enquiry officer proceeded with the departmental enquiry, in which the petitioner participated and the enquiry officer submitted a report on 1.3.2004, holding that the charges were proved. The petitioner submitted his further explanation and after considering the same, the fifth respondent by order dated 25.3.2004, imposed a punishment of postponement of next increment for three years with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the fourth respondent and the appellate authority by order dated 10.1.2005, modified the punishment into postponement of annual increment for two years without cumulative effect. The review petition filed before the third respondent was disposed of, by order dated 22.3.2005, modifying the punishment into postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner filed a mercy petition to the second respondent, which was rejected by order dated 12.5.2005 and further appeal to the first respondent, was rejected by G.O. (2D). No. 189, dated 28.3.2006. The said Government order is impugned in this writ petition.