S KARIKALAN Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was working as Head Constable. Three charges have been framed against him. Charge Nos.1 and 3 are to the effect that he did not attend the work on two days viz., on 08.07.2003 and 11.07.2003. Charge No.2 is that in a drunken condition, the appellant was intending to commit sexual assault on a minor girl.

(2.) The appellant was proceeded both departmentally and under the criminal law. The jurisdictional criminal court acquitted the appellant, as the defacto complainant and the eye witnesses turned hostile. In the departmental proceedings, the very same defacto complainant and the other witness who is said to have seen the occurrence, were examined as management witness Nos.10 and 11. From the records it also appears that there was a prior enmity between them. They have deposed that the complaint itself was given on the wrong assumption and apprehension that it was the appellant, who did the act, but it was not found to be. They have stated that they have given the aforesaid complaint by keeping the private enmity between them, on the one hand the appellant or the other. Nonetheless, the enquiry officer found that all the three charges were proved. The disciplinary authority, accepted the findings and imposed punishment of dismissal. It was accordingly concurred by the appellate authority. While doing so, the appellate authority did consider the merit in so far as the charges 1 and 3 are concerned. In so far charge No.2, it was held that acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar for departmental proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal filed was dismissed.

(3.) The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition inter alia holding that it is not for the Court to re-appreciate the materials placed before the disciplinary authority and therefore, the power of review cannot be exercised. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal is before use.