K PALANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (This writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of Constitution of India, by way of transfer of O.A.No.3828 of 1993 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, with a prayer to quash the order of the Government, the first respondent in letter No.112318/Ser.K/91-1 Home dated 30.8.1991 read with G.O.(2D) No.7 Home, dated 11.1.1991 and the connected proceedings of the Inspector General of Police (L&O), Madras, the second respondent herein in Rc.No.191070/API(1)/88 dated 16.12.1988 and the connected proceedings of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Range, the third respondent herein in C.No.81/Appeal/87 dated 31.12.1987 and the connected order of the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur West in D.O.1982/87/PR.7/87 dated 20.11.1987 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Police Constable.) Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the Government, the first respondent herein in letter No.112318/Ser.K/91-1 Home dated 30.8.1991 read with G.O.(2D) No.7 Home, dated 11.1.1991 confirming the proceedings of the Inspector General of Police (L&O), Madras, the second respondent herein in Rc.No.191070/API(1)/88 dated 16.12.1988, upholding the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Range, the third respondent herein in C.No.81/Appeal/87 dated 31.12.1987, affirming the order of the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur West in D.O.1982/87/PR.7/87 dated 20.11.1987 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Police Constable.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Pleader on the basis of the counter affidavit submitted that the charge against the petitioner being serious, preliminary enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannargudi, under the Police Standing Order 145 and directed to submit a report to the Government and based on the report departmental action was initiated in PR No.7 of 1987 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. THE Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi, conducted regular enquiry and held that the charges are proved pursuant to which the petitioner was removed from service and his appeal, revision, review, and mercy petitions, all having been dismissed, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the findings given in the enquiry report and the consequential punishment imposed. It is pointed out that in para 11 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer is a Quasi-Judicial Magistrate and Executive Magistrate and the evidence given before him is more reliable and hence credence was given to the evidence adduced before the Revenue Divisional Officer when the prosecution witnesses went against their own statement given before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Executive Magistrate. THE version given at the earlier point of time immediately after the occurrence was taken into consideration and orders were passed. THE learned Additional Government Pleader therefore submitted that the petitioner cannot now contend that no credence can be given to the statement given before the Revenue Divisional Officer.