M KHADER MOHIDEEN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NAGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed O.A.No.2723 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the respondent dated 21.2.1997 imposing punishment of censure. THE said O.A. had been transferred to the file of this Court, on abolition of Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.26479 of 2006.

(2.) THE short matrix which requires for the disposal of the present writ petition is set out hereunder: THE petitioner entered service as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1966. He was promoted as Deputy Inspector of Police on 1.2.1977. Later, he was promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 1982. When the petitioner was serving as Inspector of Police at Manalmedu Police Station from 5.1.1993 to 21.7.1996, there was an unnatural death of one Malathy and in connection with that, a case in Manalmedu Police Station Crime No.708/93 under section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered on 27.8.1993. THE petitioner was preceded departmentally under Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the then Nagai Quaid-E-Milleth District, now Nagapattinam District for not having obtained the priority letter from the Superintendent of Police for the chemical examiner's report in Manalmedu Police Station Crime No.708/93. THE charges were framed against the petitioner in the year 1996, however, the charge memo was served on him only in the year 1997. THE petitioner submitted a reply and the Deputy Superintendent of Police accepted the explanation offered by the petitioner and held that the charges against the petitioner were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted unproved minutes to the respondent on 21.2.1997. While so, the disciplinary authority, viz., the Superintendent of Police, did not agree with the report of the Enquiry Officer and held that the delinquency has been established. THE disciplinary authority without opportunity to the petitioner imposed a punishment of censure by an order dated 21.2.1997. THE petitioner has preferred an appeal against the punishment to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, however, no orders have been passed. In the meanwhile, based on the punishment imposed, the petitioner has been denied promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to move the Tribunal for quashing the punishment imposed on him.

(3.) MR. K. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner emphasised that the disciplinary authority, if he wants to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer ought to have served show-cause notice on the petitioner explaining why he differs from the report of the Enquiry Officer and calling upon the petitioner to offer his explanation and failure to do so is totally erroneous and such view has been taken not only by this Court, but also by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the reply affidavit of the respondent stating that no show-cause notice need be issued before imposing the punishment shows that the disciplinary authority was unaware of the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further, according to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner was aged about 54 years when he had moved the Tribunal and he would have retired long back and that no useful purpose would be served if the matter is remanded to the authority again for considering the punishment imposed on the petitioner and hence the matter has to be decided by this Court itself.