P THANGAVEL Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE; ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING; INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING AND DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TIRUNELVELI RANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings R.C. No. B1/EOW/1187/2005 dated 15.07.2005 removing the petitioner from his services as confirmed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings R.C. No. 165789/AP.2(1)/2005 dated 09.10.2005 with a prayer to quash the said orders.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he has been directly recruited as Sub Inspector of Police on 28.09.1987 and promoted as Inspector of Police on 19.07.2003. The petitioner claimed that he was having unblemished record of service and on 17.06.2004, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, who is the disciplinary authority for the petitioner, had framed a charge memo under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") against the petitioner. The charge memo consists of three grounds as hereunder:

(3.) The Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Tirunelveli District, was appointed as Enquiry Officer in respect of the above charge memo and eight witnesses have been examined during the course of enquiry apart from one official witness, namely, P.W.9, who was the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner submits that all the witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 8 have denied the version made against the petitioner herein and the Enquiry officer in spite of the same, by his report dated 10.01.2005 had held that the charges are proved against the petitioner by placing reliance on the statements recorded from the witnesses during the course of preliminary enquiry. The petitioner said to have submitted his detailed explanation after the conclusion of the enquiry.