M.RAGUNATH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was enlisted as Grade II Police Constable, on 13.06.1974, and thereafter, he was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police and on 28.02.2011, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. While he was serving as Sub Inspector of Police at Palayamkottai Crime Police Station, Tirunelveli City, he was issued with a charge memo on the ground that he had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/ - as bribe from one Mr. S.Saravanan and also demanded a Cell Phone, worth about Rs.10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the complainant, for giving as Deepavali Gift to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli and thereby misused the name of the Commissioner of Police. The petitioner submitted his explanation, on 11.06.2007. Having not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted enquiry and submitted report, on 10.07.2007, holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the fourth respondent, by his proceedings, dated 24.08.2007, awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service.

(2.) CHALLENGING the said order, dated 24.08.2007, the petitioner preferred an appeal, on 03.09.2007, before the third respondent. By proceedings, dated 05.11.2007, the third respondent modified the punishment of compulsory retirement from service into that of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years and the period of reduction shall not operate to postpone his future increments and further directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with immediate effect. Seeking to review the said order, dated 05.11.2007, the petitioner filed a Review Petition before the second respondent, who, in turn, by proceedings, dated 12.05.2008, held that the modified punishment is not excessive in view of the seriousness of the delinquency, and accordingly, rejected the Review Petition. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a Mercy Petition, on 13.10.2008, before the first respondent. Vide proceedings, dated 18.01.2011, the first respondent rejected the Mercy Petition filed by the petitioner and confirmed the orders passed by the authorities concerned. Assailing the validity of all the above orders, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, contended that the Enquiry Officer, in his findings, on the basis of the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses 1 to 4 and through documentary evidences, held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and based on the same, the fourth respondent awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service, which was, taking into consideration of the service rendered by the petitioner, modified by the third respondent into that of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years and the period of reduction shall not operate to postpone his future increments and further directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with immediate effect, and thus, there is nothing perverse in the impugned orders.