V RAMADOSS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4. Summary of facts:

(2.) THE petitioner, who was a police constable in the Armed Reserve had been dismissed from service for gross misconduct, after enquiry by the disciplinary authority. The order was challenged before the Administrative Tribunal, but did not succeed. He is before us challenging the order dated 18. 3. 2002 in O. A. No. 3907 of 1991 as affirmed in review application by order dated 20. 6. 2003 in R. A. No. 59 of 2002.

(3.) THE case has had a long chequered career. The charge against the petitioner was that in a raid by a Prohibition Enforcement Wing conducted on 22. 8. 1981 between 10. 45 a. m and 4 p. m, the petitioner had posed himself as a member of the police party along with others and travelled to one Paiyur Village. He was alleged to have demanded Rs. 500/- from one Govindasamy and obtained Rs. 100/-as illegal gratification. Yet another person Navaneetha Krishnan from whom also a similar illegal gratification had been obtained was made the other victim of his illegal demand. As a part of the same transaction, another person Murugaiah, S/o Sundara Nadar as also made to succumb to the demand of illegal gratification. The petitioner responded to the charge sheet that he was never present with the other members of the police party and that he was not at all involved in the incident. The enquiry officer who conducted enquiry gave his finding after recording evidence of witnesses that even in the complaint lodged by a victim for illegal gratification, the petitioner's name was specifically referred to as having participated in the illegal demand. The enquiry officer found as follows: