STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. TR J BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Disciplinary Authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent by framing three charges. The Disciplinary Authority conducted an ex-parte enquiry stating that the respondent was not co-operating with the Enquiry Officer for an early disposal of the matter. The Disciplinary Authority after conclusion of the enquiry, passed an order dismissing the respondent from service. The order was passed on 10 July 1999. The respondent challenged the said order before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 1 December 1999. The order was thereafter challenged before the Government. The Government rejected the revision petition by order dated 10 December 2002. The respondent thereafter, filed Original Application in O.A.No.738 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order of punishment. The Original Application was transferred to this Court and registered as W.P.No.28307 of 2005. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the punishment. The learned Single Judge taking into account the retirement of the respondent on attaining the age of superannuation, directed the appellants to calculate the benefits payable to him. The order is under challenge at the instance of the Police Department.

(2.) We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants. We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, issued a charge memo to the respondent on 20 July 1998 alleging that he published a pamphlet under the caption Niyayemthana on 009.1998 criticizing his superior officers and threatening to go on indefinite fast from 8 June 1998 in front of the Police Control room at Thanjavur. The other charge relates to the publication of pamphlet under the caption Neethi Kettu Unnaviratham on 2 August 1993 criticizing his superior officers and threatening to go on fast on 10 August 199 The third charge relates to the misconduct in having used the traveler's diary of the Inspector for printing and publishing the pamphlet on 3 June 1998.