P GANESH @ GANESAN Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Police Constable Grade-II in the Police Department. He was placed under suspension, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, pending enquiry into charges to be framed against him. Thereafter, a charge-memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 13.08.2013, charging the petitioner along with another Police Constable Grade-I, that during the duty hours, he entered the TASMAC outlet at about 10.30 p.m., on 24.06.2013 and attempted to consume alcohol from the TASMAC outlet, which was in fact closed after working hours.

(2.) Thereafter, an enquiry was held and the charges were found established. An enquiry report was also submitted on 10.03.2014. After obtaining explanation from the petitioner, final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the penalty of "compulsory retirement", on 12.12.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed mercy petition-cum-Review Petition on 23.04.2015. The same was rejected by the Director General of Police, on 09.06.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner appealed to the Government, vide his representation dated 09.06.2016, followed by reminders. However, no order was passed. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.16777 of 2018. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 05.07.2018, directing the Government to dispose of the appeal within a particular time. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Petition in Contempt Petition No.2712 of 2018, on 01.11.2018. However, no order was passed by the Government in compliance with the earlier order passed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition. Finally the Government passed order in G.O.(D) No.1479, Home (Police V) Department, dated 21.12.2018, rejecting the appeal as being devoid of merits. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the third respondent herein, dated 12.12.2014 and the orders passed by the second and first respondents, dated 09.06.2016 and 21.12.2018 are put to challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he would confine his argument only in regard to the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner, viz., "compulsory retirement". According to the learned counsel, the co-delinquent, who was also identically charge-sheeted, who was a Grade-I Police Constable, was given a minor penalty of 'postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect, vide order dated 10.11.2014, whereas, the petitioner herein was imposed with the penalty of "compulsory retirement". According to the learned counsel, both the petitioner as well as the other person, viz., A.Prabakaran, Grade-I Police Constable, were supposed to have visited the TASMAC outlet on the date and time mentioned in the charge-memorandum and attempted to consume alcohol illegally. While so, while imposing the penalty, the Government has adopted a different yardstick by letting of the other co-delinquent with the minor penalty of 'postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect', whereas, the petitioner was compulsorily retired.