G SELVARAJ Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :- THE petitioner entered service under the Police Department as a Grade-II Police Constable in 1984 and, in course of time, he was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable. While he was working in such capacity in the Central Crime Branch, Chennai, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. THE gravamen of the charge was to the effect that the delinquent impersonating himself as investigating officer for immigration clearance, had managed to obtain Rs.500/- from the family of the complainant. THE enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of such charge and the Commissioner of Police, namely, Respondent No.1, coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable, after giving him further opportunity of showing cause, passed an order of removal from service vide order dated 12.4.2000. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Director General of Police, namely, Respondent No.2, while upholding the conclusion relating to delinquency, modified the punishment to one of compulsory retirement as per order dated 7.3.2001. THE petitioner challenged the said order of punishment by filing O.A.No.1293 of 2002, which having been dismissed as per order dated 27.6.2002, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the finding of the delinquency is based on no evidence on record and the Department having not examined the direct witnesses, should not have imposed the punishment on the petitioner. It has been further submitted that in view of the categorical statement of the complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 during the departmental proceedings, to the effect that the delinquent person was not the person who had come to the house of the complainant on 2.10.1999, 3.10.1999 and 5.10.1999, the ultimate conclusion regarding culpability of the petitioner has to be discarded as a perverse finding.

(3.) IN the present case, the culpability of the petitioner is sought to be established through the statement of the complainant - P.W.1., statement of P.W.2 - INspector of Police, who had submitted a contemporaneous confidential report, on the basis of which the petitioner was placed under suspension and subsequently departmental proceedings was initiated, and the documents such as the complaint of P.W.1 - Ex.1, confidential report Ex.2 and Memo 461/FOC/Misc/99 dated 1.10.99 under which the delinquent had been assigned the work for the relevant year.