K RAMALINGAM Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of punishment dated 30. 4. 1999 passed by the respondent and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) THE respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the complainant Periasamy appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perambalur on 12. 4. 1998 and gave a statement against the petitioner about the alleged bribery of Rs. 2,200/- in the presence of witnesses. On ascertaining the truth of the statement, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perambalur, issued a charge memo against the petitioner on 17. 4. 1998 under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in P. R. 25/98. During the course of oral enquiry, the witneses have turned hostile and that was because all the witnesses are connected with the day to day administration of the petitioner in Maruvathur Police Station. Hence, relying on their statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry, the order of punishment was issued on the petitioner. With regard to the difference in the time of occurrence in the charge memo and in the statement of witnesses, it is stated that the time quoted is not accurate time and only approximate time. The word 'about' has been used both in the charge memo as well as in the statement of the witnesses. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the witnesses have on their own appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of Police at his camp office and gave statement voluntarily and no force was used on them to obtain their preliminary statements. It is also stated that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal to the higher authorities and directly approached the Tribunal and hence the writ petition is not maintainable.