K KANAKARAJ Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition challenges the order of removal from service dated 18. 3. 1986, as confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 15. 3. 1988 and further confirmed by the first respondent in his order dated 28. 7. 1988 and seeks direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit are as follows, (a) Petitioner was employed as Office Assistant in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gudalur, Nilgris District and during october, 1985, he was transferred to the Single Digit Finger Print Section, ootacamund. On 31. 10. 1985 he was on leave and went to the Office of the superintendent, Single Digit Finger Print Section, to claim his pay. (b) It is the case of the petitioner that the occupants of that office made grave and false allegations against him as if he was under drunken mood and created a scene that he scolded the Superintendent and others in filthy language. With regard to the said incident a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Section 4 (1) (j) of the TNP Act read with Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act. Petitioner was sent for medical examination on 31. 10. 1985 at 5. 50 p. m and the Medical Officer at the government Officer, Ooty, who examined the petitioner, certified that the petitioner was not under the influence of liquor. However, petitioner was placed under suspension from 1. 11. 1985. According to the petitioner, the criminal case registered against the petitioner was dropped in view of the initiation of departmental action and the report in this regard is dated 18. 3. 1986. (c) It is the further case of the petitioner that he was issued with a charge memo on 5. 11. 1985 for the above said incident and the Deputy superintendent of Police conducted enquiry. Petitioner states that during enquiry eight witnesses were examined and all the eight witnesses were departmental witnesses and no independent witness was examined, even though according to the case of the Department, many public witnessed the incident on 31. 10. 1985. Medical Officer, who examined the petitioner and issued the certificate was also not examined. In the enquiry the charge framed against the petitioner was held to be proved. Thereafter, the third respondent by his order dated 18. 3. 198 6 removed the petitioner from service. (d) It is the further case of the petitioner that he challenged the said order of removal before the second respondent on several grounds, but the appellate authority, without considering the points raised, after two years, passed a non-speaking order by his proceeding dated 15. 3. 1988 and rejected the appeal. Against that order, petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent, who also rejected the revision by his order dated 28. 7. 1988. The said order of removal, as confirmed in appeal and revision is now challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the charge itself is baseless as the charge levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in a drunken mood, scolded the Office Superintendent, but the state of drunken mood was not established, is evident from the Doctor's certificate, and that the actual word by which the petitioner scolded the superintendent is also not disclosed. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the charge is vague and the petitioner was prevented from defending the case properly. The learned counsel further argued that no independent witness was examined and all the witnesses examined are departmental witnesses, who are biased against the petitioner and subordinate to the Office superintendent and they might have been influenced. The learned counsel further argued that the appellate authority failed to follow rule 23 (1) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Ultimately the learned counsel submitted that in any event, the extreme punishment imposed upon the petitioner for the trivial charge is excessive and the same is disproportionate.