C RAJALINGAM Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) That the instant writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings Ta.Pa.No.109/H.3/2005, under Rule 3(b) of dated 18.02.2008 and confirmed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings Rc.No.16883/AP 2(2)/2008 dated 19/03/2009 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential attendant and service benefits.

(2.) The facts in brief are as under:-

(3.) The inquiry officer by his report dated 09.02.2007 held that all the 5 allegations framed against the petitioner were proved. The defence of the petitioner was that he was released on bail on the condition that he had to report to the Judicial Magistrate everyday, for which he had sought oral permission from his superiors. However, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his defence during the proceedings.