G. RAVICHANDRAN Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an Inspector of Police, working in Chennai city. A charge memorandum has been issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Chennai East District, by his proceedings in Tha. Ko. No. 125/Po. Va. Thapi/13 dated 10.12.2013 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. There were as many as four charges. The petitioner denied the charges. The fourth respondent was appointed as enquiry officer to hold enquiry into the charges. On service of notice by the enquiry officer, the petitioner appeared for enquiry on 27.03.2014. On that date, the petitioner made a request for adjournment after submitting his explanation. That was granted and the enquiry was postponed to 07.04.2014. On 07.04.2014, the petitioner appeared. But he gave a letter seeking adjournment stating that he needed to have the assistance of retired officer during enquiry. But no order was passed on the said request. According to the petitioner, thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to cross -examine the witnesses without any chief examination. When the petitioner questioned the enquiry officer as to how it could be possible for him to conduct cross -examination without there being a chief examination, he was informed that chief examination had already been recorded from as many as seven witnesses. He declined to cross -examine the witnesses and declined to sign in the proceeding. On the spot, instantaneously, he gave a letter to the enquiry officer, protesting against the procedure adopted by him in not recording the deposition of the witnesses in his presence. That was not considered. Thereafter, the enquiry was postponed to few more days. The petitioner, thereafter made a representation in this regard, demanding examination of witnesses in his presence. But nothing was considered. In those circumstances, the petitioner has come up with this petition seeking to quash the proceedings.

(2.) I have heard Mr. K. Venkatramani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the records carefully.

(3.) I have considered the above submissions.