M.PANDI Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the first respondent dated 08.02.2018 is sought to be quashed in the present Writ Petition and further direction is sought for to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages and with all other attendant benefits.

(2.) According to the petitioner, while he was working as Head Constable in Law and Order in the Thilakarthedal Police Station, Madurai, based on the complaint given by one Hyder Ali on 07.02.2009, alleging that the petitioner has assaulted him in Central Vegetable Market, Madurai and extorted a sum of Rs.4500/- from the said Hyder Ali, a case was registered on 08.02.2009. Based on the First Information Report, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai and subsequently, he was released on bail. The petitioner was placed under suspension and charge memo, dated 13.11.2009, containing three charges, was issued. The petitioner has submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent has ordered for domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer, after concluding the enquiry, has filed report on 30.06.2010, holding that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.11178 of 2010 forbearing the third respondent herein / second respondent therein from proceeding further in the domestic enquiry and from passing final order in the disciplinary proceedings, till the disposal of the criminal case. This Court, by the order dated 27.08.2010, has allowed the said Writ Petition.

(3.) By the judgment dated 09.09.2016, made in S.C.No.47 of 2010, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the petitioner and another person, holding that the charges are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The third respondent has issued second show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his explanation. The third respondent, by the order dated 28.01.2017, has dismissed the petitioner from service. On appeal, the second respondent, by the order dated 03.05.2017, has modified the punishment of dismissal from service as compulsory retirement. The review filed by the petitioner before the first respondent was rejected. Against the said three orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition.