R KUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a police constable attached to the Armed Reserve, Chennai City Police. He was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) TNPSS (D&A) Rules in P.R.No,25/95 for the grave irregularity in submitting Clothing Acquittance roll on 23.8.1994 to the Commanding Officer "C" Company without actually issuing clothing materials to the two police constables, namely Ganesan and Murugesan by forging the signature of the two constables and he was further accused of misconduct and misappropriation of Rs.300/- between 11.10.1994 to 27.6.1995 and handing over the said amount only on 28.6.1995 to the Officer Commanding.

(2.) AN enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges were proved. He imposed the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect for the proved charges. However, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City took up cognizance of the case suo motu and held that the charges were proved and it requires a deterrent punishment. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the punishment should not be enhanced. Since the petitioner did not submit any explanation, the Commissioner of Police by his order dated 20.3.1997 ordered for the dismissal of the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner gave his explanation dated 26.06.1998. Upon receiving his explanation, the respondent by the impugned order dated 04.08.1998 rejected the petitioner's explanation and imposed the punishment of dismissal. It is as against this order, O.A.No,7356 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.