D PACKIARAJ Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the 4th respondent dated 17. 2. 2000, as confirmed in appeal by the 3rd respondent by order dated 21. 7. 2000, in review by the 2nd respondent by order dated 12. 7. 2003 and also in mercy petition by the 1st respondent by order dated 1. 8. 2003, and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner on par with his juniors.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Grade-II Police constable in Armed Reserve, Ramnad District and subsequently transferred to local Police in the year 1986. He was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable during 1994. THE case of the petitioner is that his batchmates were promoted as head Constables in the year 1999 itself, but he was not promoted on the ground that there was an allegation against him. Petitioner was posted to Kamudhi police Station on 14. 6. 1998 and subsequently from 10. 2. 1999 he was posted to sub Treasury Guard duty at Kamuthi. THEn he was transferred to Jetti Out post, rameswaram. While working so, petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 11. 5. 1999 on the allegation that he prevented the District Supply Officer from entering into the Tahsildar Office and misbehaved with him under the incluence of alcohol on 20. 2. 1999.

(3.) ON going through the above referred statements and the extract of Para Book, which was marked as ex-4, I am of the considered view that there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner had prevented the District Supply Officer as alleged in the charge. ON the contrary the District Supply Officer was in a drunken mood and tried to enter into the office at mid night. Since the enquiry finding is on no evidence, the same shall be treated as perverse finding. Consequently, the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the impugned order dated 17. 2. 2000 based on the said perverse finding, as confirmed in appeal and review as well as in the mercy petition dated 21. 7. 2000, 12. 7. 2003 and 1. 8. 2003 respectively, is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed. Since the punishment imposed on the petitioner is set aside, he shall be considered for promotion notionally from the date of his junior given promotion and monetary benefit shall be paid to the petitioner from the date of his actual promotion. Orders to that effect shall be passed by the concerned authority within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. .