N RAMASUBBU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for mrs. AL. Gandhimathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Chellammal, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and have perused the records.

(2.) THE writ petition is filed by a Sub-Inspector of Police, who is working at D-2, Thideer Nagar Police Station. He is challenging the order of compulsory retirement made by the first respondent, Commissioner of Police, dated 04. 04. 2005. The petitioner had not filed any appeal or revision in terms of the service rules and have straight away filed the writ petition. The petitioner was suspended pending enquiry into allegations of misconduct. The petitioner has challenged the said suspension by way of writ proceedings in W. P. No. 1215 of 2004. This Court granted an interim stay by an order dated 15. 09. 2004. In the light of the said stay order, the petitioner was restored to service by proceedings dated 05. 10. 2004 and the petitioner continued in service till he was compulsorily retired by the impugned order. Followed by the order of suspension, a charge memo under Rule 3 (b), was given to the petitioner under Tamil Nadu police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner by a letter, dated 08. 11. 2004, sought for some documents in support of some charges. By a letter, dated 19. 11. 2004, he was permitted to peruse the documents. After recording the deposition of the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer by his report, dated 14. 02. 2005 found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Before agreeing with the findings, the respondent gave a copy of the report and asked for further explanation from the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not submit any explanation. Therefore, the first respondent passed the impugned order, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed and was admitted on 13. 04. 2005. But this Court declined to grant any interim order.

(3.) THE charge against the petitioner was that he was a prosecution witness in S. C. No. 398 of 2003 tried by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. In that case some Police Officers were charged with the offence of kidnapping, murder and causing disappearance of evidence. While deposing on 19. 08. 2004, before the Sessions Court, the petitioner being P. W. 1 did not support the case of the prosecution and he simply turned hostile. This was contrary to the statement given to him under Section 161 Cr. P. C. It is alleged that the petitioner deposed only as an official witness and this can be proved from the fact that he has not taken any view and the relevant GD entry in the station will also prove the same. His claim that he was a private witness cannot be accepted.