LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-148

JAYACHITRA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT

Decided On January 02, 2023
JAYACHITRA Appellant
V/S
Superintendent Of Police, Krishnagiri District Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Police Training College, Chennai, on 15/9/1993 on compassionate grounds. At the time of her appointment, she had submitted the Death Certificate, Legal Heirship Certificate, Income Certificate, Educational Qualification Certificate, for getting appointment on compassionate grounds. When the certificate dtd. 10/6/2009 that her mother had not remarried, was sent for verification to the Tahsildar Office, Krishnagiri, the Tahsildar had certified that the said certificate was not issued from their office. Subsequently, the Income Certificate that her family members are not employed in the Government or Private Department dtd. 13/3/1992; Legal Heirship Certificate dtd. 5/7/1990; Death Certificate dtd. 20/5/1990; and immovable property details dtd. 5/1/1993, were also held to be bogus through a letter of the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri, dtd. 10/12/2010. In view of this, charges came to be framed against the petitioner through a Charge Memo dtd. 19/11/2012. In the Inquiry Report dtd. 28/10/2013, the charge against the petitioner was held as proved. The first respondent herein by the impugned order dtd. 14/11/2013, had imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. On appeal, the second respondent herein had confirmed the order of punishment through the impugned order 4/2/2014. Both these original orders as well as the order in appeal, are put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Inquiry Officer had not rendered any finding with regard to the statement of the witnesses and that the concerned Tahsildar who had certified the documents submitted by the petitioner as bogus, was not examined and therefore, the punishment itself requires to be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the averments in the counter-affidavit and submitted that though the petitioner was initially appointed on 15/9/1993, she had evaded to submit all the original testimonials for the purpose of regularization and had ultimately, submitted the same only belatedly. Since the Tahsildar had certified that the documents submitted by the petitioner was not issued from their office, there is no infirmity in the punishment imposed.