D DRAVIDASELVAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he was a Grade II Police Constable in Kunnathur Police Station, Periyar District. While so, he was placed under suspension, on 20.7.95, and a charge memo had been issued to him on 9.10.95, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, stating that the petitioner who was one of the members of the police party, which had raided the house of one Govindammal, on 19.7.95, as part of the prohibition raid. When the police party had left the house of Govindammal, the petitioner had committed theft of a gold chain worth Rs.11,100/-, Rs.3105/- in cash and a wrist watch worth Rs.300/-. Based on the identification parade, the complainant had identified the stolen watch worn by the petitioner, based on which he was arrested and sent for remand. THE stolen properties were seized under a cover of mahazar duly attested by witnesses. THErefore, the petitioner was charged of grave misconduct, unbecoming of a person employed in the police department. Based on the complaint made against the petitioner, a case has been registered in Crime No.552 of 1995, under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, it was stated that an oral enquiry would be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gobi. Since, it was proposed that 27 witnesses would be examined on the side of the prosecution and 31 documents marked, to prove the charge against the petitioner, the petitioner had requested the second respondent to permit him to take the assistance of an advocate to cross examine the witnesses. However, the second respondent by his order, dated 14.11.95, rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the charges against him were straight and that they do not involve any technical problem. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed an original application before the Tamil nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2159 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.27621 of 2006.

(3.) CONSIDERING the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to substantiate his claim for assistance from a legally trained person. Unless the petitioner is in a position to show that complicated legal issues are involved, he cannot be in a position to demand such assistance. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent department is assisted by a legally qualified person.