S ALBERT THANGARAJ Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Original application in O.A.No,3963 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.

(2.) HEARD Mr.Ravi Shanmugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3.) AN enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivaikuntam. 6 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked as exhibits on the side of the department. As far as the first and third charge are concerned, admittedly, the petitioner did not attend the beat duty on 07.12.1998 and also remained absent up to 14.12.1998. The defence of the petitioner was that he reported about his sickness to both Mr.Iyyam Pillai and also the Head Constable Mr.Selvaraj. Both of them were examined in the enquiry. During the cross examination, both of them admitted that the petitioner informed about his illness. Mr.Selvaraj deposed that he could not grant him leave and that he should seek leave only from the superiors. It is also admitted that the superior officers viz., the Inspector and the Sub-Inspector of Police were not available in the police station. This piece of evidence in favour of defence was not considered by the enquiring authority while recording the finding of guilt. There is no discussion whatsoever by the enquiring authority regarding this piece of evidence. Though the above version of the prosecution witnesses was produced in the report of the enquiry officer, while narrating the facts, the same was not considered while rendering findings. However, the mere illness would not be a ground for the petitioner to absent himself from duty from 07.12.1998 to 13.12.1998 and to report for duty only on 14.12.1998. The above fact that the petitioner intimated about his illness would certainly be a mitigating factor while considering the imposition of punishment. This relevant piece of evidence is a factor that has to be taken note of while moulding the relief.