S BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent dated 31. 7. 2004 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, which was communicated by an order dated 19. 8. 2004, as well as the recovery order dated 11. 8. 2006.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Mr. M. S. Soundararajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Bhavani Subbarayan, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents and have perused the records.

(3.) THE petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge against the petitioner was that he had intimidated and intruded into the privacy of one Santhanamariammal, wife of Shanmugam, another Police Constable at 5. 30 pm on 18. 6. 1983 and in furtherance of the object of intimidation and intrusion, visited the line hut 18 K Block between 9 and 10 pm clandestinely and skulked away. Subsequently, after conducting an enquiry, the petitioner was given punishment of reduction in time scale of pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect by an order dated 27. 12. 1984. The petitioner challenged the same by way of appeal dated 29. 02. 1985. But, however, the third respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police issued a suo motu revision order as to why the penalty should not be enhanced to that dismissal and accordingly, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 12. 9. 1985. The petitioner preferred a Review Petition before the Inspector General of Police and the penalty was set aside and the petitioner asked to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service by a notice dated 11. 12. 1996. Subsequently, after getting his explanation, he was dismissed from service on 04. 3. 1987.