G RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of removal from service, dated 13.04.1993, passed by the Superintendent of Police, of erstwhile, Kamarajar District and that of the appellate authority, namely, Deputy Inspector General of Police, dated 14.07.1993, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) THE facts leading to the writ petition are as follows THE petitioner was Head Constable attached to Keelkudi Out Post, Virudhunagar. In the year 1991, he was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of T.N.P.S.S. (D & A) Rules 1955 alleging that he was found lying in drunken mood in front of the house of one Sakkarai THEvar, a prohibition offender, on 21.09.1991, besides having allowed movement of I.D. arrack in the Keelkudi Out Post limit conniving with prohibition offenders. It was further alleged that he had indulged in reprehensible conduct in tampering and fabricating false record in the General Diary of Keelkudi Out Post dated 21.09.1991. An oral enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar and the enquiry officer after examination of the evidence, records and the defence statement held that the charges were not proved. However, the Superintendent of Police, Kamarajar District disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and gave a dissenting minute stating that the departmental witnesses namely PWs1, 3 to 5 have deposed that the delinquent was lying in front of the house of Sakkarai THEvar and issued a show cause notice. THE petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the dissenting note of the disciplinary authority and stated that in the absence of any evidence, the charges were not substantiated and rightly has not proved by the enquiry officer and therefore the same to be sustained. THE disciplinary authority without considering the same in a proper perspective, held that the charges are proved on the following grounds

(3.) THE petitioner has further submitted that he preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, to the second respondent, pointing out the various irregularities and submitted that the finding of the disciplinary authority is not supported by any legal evidence. THE second respondent by an order dated 14.07.1993 has simply rejected the appeal by a non speaking order. THE petitioner has further submitted that when the charges were pending, he was vindictively transferred and posted to serve under the same Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arrupukkottai, on whose report, he was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings. THErefore, the petitioner was apprehensive in joining Arrupukkottai fearing victimization and requested the Superintendent of Police, to post him to some other division. His request was rejected. THEreafter, the Superintendent of Police marked him as absent from 09.05.1992 and he was treated as deserter by an order dated 03.07.1992. Though the petitioner appeared in person before the appointing authority, on 03.07.1992, before the expiry of two months period with a medical certificate and requested to take him back to duty, the first respondent refused to entertain the medical certificate and on the contrary, initiated a fresh disciplinary proceedings in PR.34/92. An oral enquiry was conducted in respect of charges of absence without leave or permission and no order was passed in the said proceedings and in the meanwhile, the first respondent has awarded a penalty of removal from service, in respect of the earlier charge of lying in a drunken mood in front of the house of the prohibition offender.