RAJAMANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari, the petitioner has challenged the order of his removal from service. The petitioner was initially recruited for the post of a permanent Sub-Inspector and after completing the training, he was posted as a Probationary Sub-Inspector in the B2 Police Station, Madurai South. Thereafter, he was transferred to other places and finally confirmed in the post of Sub-Inspector on 14th June, 1966. In 1972, the petitioner was promoted to the Deputy Inspector of Police. Subsequently, in 1975, according to the case of the petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police by an order of the third respondent herein in memo No. 105758/ra-1/75 dated 27th June, 1975 and this order was communicated to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai South, in his communication D. C. No. 1296/75 dated 9th May, 1975. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted to Kodaikanal Police Station where he was working till 25th August, 1977. Subsequently, certain charges were framed against the petitioner under S. 4 (1) (a) of the Prohibition Act and S. 499, I. P. C. A charge memo also was issued to him asking for the explanation of the petitioner with reference to the charge of the acceptance of illegal gratification. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he was innocent. Thereafter, the enquiry was proceeded with and further representations were called for from the petitioner by the fourth respondent. Later, the fourth respondent informed the petitioner that it was provisionally decided to impose the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner for the charges framed against him. A reply to that was also sent by the petitioner to the 4th respondent and subsequently by an order dated 18th August, 1979, the 4th respondent removed the petitioner from service. An appeal against that order was preferred by the petitioner to the third respondent and that was also rejected. A review petition filed by the petitioner subsequently was also rejected. It is under the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has come forward before this Court praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of his dismissal from service.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondent herein, apart from meeting the case of the petitioner on its merits, it is stated that the pointing authority in respect of Inspectors of Police is the Deputy Inspector General Police, and that only such an authority had passed orders removing the petitioner from service and therefore, no exception could be taken to the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service.

(3.) THE only contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an Inspector of Police by memo No. 205758/ra-1/75, dated 27th June, 1975, by the third respondent, who is the Inspector General of Police, and therefore, the order of removal of the petitioner from service passed by the 4th respondent, an officer inferior in rank to the appointing authority, cannot be sustained. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Thirumalai Subramanian v. Inspector General of Police, Madras and another (W. P. 213 of 1976, dated 9th December, 1977 ). On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that under the relevant rules governing the appointment of Inspectors of Police, viz. , Rule 3 (a) read with Annexure-I of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, the Deputy Inspector General of Police is the appointing authority and therefore, the order dismissing the petitioner from service passed by him was quite correct and could not in any manner be challenged. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was stated to be inapplicable as that had proceeded on a wrong concession during the course of the arguments.