ANGAPPAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ERODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINALLY, the petitioner filed O. A. 4126 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, which has been re-numbered as writ petition and has come up for final disposal on merits.

(2.) THE petitioner, while working as head constable in Vellaikoil Police Station committed grave delinquency, which are as follows:-

(3.) BASED on the above said incident, the petitioner was suspended and departmental action was taken. A charge memo was issued on 7. 8. 1998. The petitioner did not submit his explanation to the charge memo. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erode Town was appointed as enquiry officer in proceedings dated 15. 8. 1998 and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner on 23. 9. 1998. Thereafter for one reason or the other, the enquiry officer was changed, on due intimation to the petitioner and the petitioner was given an opportunity to peruse the document, which was not availed. On 23. 9. 1998, the petitioner was served with a memo calling upon him to appear in the oral enquiry to be held on 29. 9. 1998, which he failed to attend. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses were examined exparte on 29. 9. 1998. There was a change of enquiry Officer, in proceedings dated 12. 10. 1998, which was also intimated to the petitioner. Petitioner was called upon to cross-examine the witnesses. The intimation was acknowledged on 1. 12. 1998. The oral enquiry was adjourned to various dates viz. , 12. 1. 99, 21. 1. 99 and 28. 1. 99 for the purpose of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, but the petitioner did not avail the opportunity given. The oral enquiry was again fixed on 7. 2. 1999 and the petitioner was called upon to produce the defence witnesses, which he failed to do. Further time was given to the petitioner, to file his written statement of defence, by memo in RC No. PR. 72/98, dated 7. 2. 99, which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 12. 2. 99. However, no explanation was submitted and the enquiry officer drew the minutes of the proceedings exparte on 16. 2. 99 and sent the files to the Superintendent of Police, the disciplinary authority for passing appropriate orders. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the enquiry report on 23. 2. 99 to submit his further representation within 15 days. The petitioner failed to give his explanation inspite of acknowledgement.