M BEEMAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in D.O.1148/2004,C.No.J1/PR 190/2002, dated 31.05.2004, and quash the same and consequently, to reinstate the petitioner in service with all back wages, monetary and other attendant benefits.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent.

(3.) IN the order of suspension passed against the petitioner, it had been stated that the petitioner had utilised his Kawasaki Bajaj Motor Cycle for illicit transport of Rectified Spirit. Whereas, in count No.1 of the charge, it has been stated that he has involved himself in illicit transport of 350 liters of Rectified Spirit in Ambassador Car bearing registration No.TN-U-2354. IN the count No.1 of the charge, the date of occurrence was mentioned as 08.09.2002. Whereas, in the statement of allegations, the date of occurrence has been mentioned as 10.11.2002. IN the count No.2 of the charge, the statement of allegations says that there was reliable information that the petitioner had transported 10 more cans of Rectified Spirit, on 10.11.2002, in another vehicle and delivered the contraband to Malliga. Based on which, a case had been registered in Mammallapuram Prohibition Enforcement Wing (PEW) in Crime No.364 of 2002. IN the suspension order for count No.2 of the charge, it has been stated that a car was used whereas, in the charge memo the vehicle was not named. On the other hand, in the statement of allegations, it has been stated that the petitioner had transported 10 cans of Rectified Spirit, on 10.11.2002, in another vehicle. Thus, the statement of allegations is contrary to count No.1 and 2 mentioned in the charge memo.