P CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE petitioner, while in service as a police constable, was issued with a charge memo in P.R.95/85. After an enquiry was held into the charges, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the petitioner was removed from service by an order passed by the second respondent. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the order passed by the second respondent, removing the petitioner from service, had been confirmed. THEreafter, the petitioner had filed a review petition, wherein the penalty of removal from service, imposed on the petitioner, was modified to that of compulsory retirement. THEreafter, the petitioner had preferred a mercy petition to the Government to reinstate the petitioner in service. By an order, in G.O.3D.No.120, Home (POL.VI), Department, dated 9.7.96, the first respondent had passed an order, which is as follows:

(3.) IN view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out a case to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 9.7.96. The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to hold that the impugned order, dated 9.7.96, is devoid of merits or that it has been passed without application of mind. Nor has the petitioner shown that the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect is excessive in nature.