A.GNANASELVADHAS Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 24.04.2012, in L1/Pr No.63/2011, consequential order of the second respondent, dated 15.06.2012, in C.No.C4/AP.26/2012 and the consequential proceedings of the first respondent, dated 06.02.2017, in Rc.No. 102380/AP2(1)/2016, and also a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits.

(2.) According to the petitioner, while he was working as Head Constable, he was suspended from service with effect from 08.06.2010. A charge memo dated 13.05.2011 was issued to him by the third respondent under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964, containing 13 charges that he borrowed money from various third parties without prior permission. One of the charges is that, he cheated one Russel, S/o.Thangam, on the pretext of getting employment in Police or Military to his grandson and criminal case is under investigation. According to the petitioner, he has not borrowed any money from Russel. On the other hand, he has borrowed money from one Isaac, co-employee and a false complaint was given against the petitioner as though he got money from the said Russel and cheated him. The other 12 charges are that, he borrowed money from 12 persons mentioned in the charge memo. 2(a).The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge memo, denying the charges leveled against him. The third respondent ordered domestic enquiry. In the enquiry, all the 12 persons deposed that the petitioner borrowed money from them, who are relatives and wives of the serving personnel. No document was filed to prove the said borrowing. The petitioner did not borrow money from the said Russel and did not cheat him. On the other hand, he borrowed money from Isaac, who is son-in-law of the said Russel. A false criminal case filed against the petitioner was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15344 of 2010, vide order dated 28.04.2011. The Enquiry Officer failed to consider the said fact. The third respondent accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer and without properly appreciating the enquiry officer's report and the evidence let in in the domestic enquiry, by order dated 24.04.2012, imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement. The said order is a non-speaking order. Similarly, the respondents 2 and 1 rejected the appeal and the review application.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer's report as well as the order of the third respondent imposing punishment of compulsory retirement is invalid, as the third respondent held that the petitioner had not denied the borrowing. The respondent failed to consider that 12 charges are only for outside borrowing and the charge of cheating is not sustainable in view of the fact that the criminal case registered against the petitioner was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 15344 of 2010, vide order dated 28.04.2011. Russel, who was allegedly cheated by the petitioner, did not give any statement in the departmental proceedings. The loan transaction was settled and this Court quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner in the abovesaid Criminal Original Petition. The punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the charges and arbitrary in violation of the Rules. The respondents failed to see that lending money is also improper under Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964, which itself shows that the charges and the enquiry are biased.