INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Vs. M SAVARLGURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent in the writ petition is a direct recruit to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. He was charge-sheeted under Rule 3 (b) of the tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955, on the ground of "reprehensible conduct and spoiling the morale of the post, by having illicit intimacy with one Malathi, wife of one Vijayan; that he tried to seduce one Rani alias Maragatha Rani, daughter of Vijayan; the said rani attempted to commit suicide" (Page 2 of the affidavit ). On the complaint received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, an enquiry was conducted, leading to a prima facie case against the first respondent. In the course of the departmental proceedings, the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and went against their statement previously given at the time of preliminary enquiry before the enquiry officer. Taking note of the complaint given and the statement by the witnesses at the time of preliminary enquiry and considering the fact that such conduct was detrimental to the good image of such disciplined uniformed forces, the delinquent was awarded a punishment of dismissal from service by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy range, in his proceedings dated 28. 7. 2002.

(2.) AGGRIEVED of the said order passed by the second petitioner herein, the delinquent officer, the first respondent in the writ petition, moved an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and sought for a quashing of the order dated 28. 7. 2002 and to consequently direct the writ petitioners to reinstate the first respondent into service with all benefits therein.

(3.) THE applicant in the O. A. /the first respondent in this writ petition contended before the Tribunal that the evidence adduced at the time of enquiry ought to have been given its due weightage and that the disciplinary authorities erred in placing reliance on the statements given at the time of preliminary enquiry to impose a major punishment. Thus the first respondent submitted that the whole proceedings was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The first respondent further submitted that he ought not to have been punished on mere suspicion without any proof of the charge. The first respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme court of this Court in 1979-L. W. 428), and AIR 1966 SC 1827 to impress on the fact that the order passed merely on suspicion was liable to be quashed. The first respondent submitted that there was no fair and reasonable enquiry and that the punishment imposed was disproportionate; hence, contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in (2000) 3 SCC 450.