R.RAJARAM Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charge memo dated 03.04.2014 is under challenge in the present writ petition. The writ petitioner was working as Police Inspector and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2013. After retirement of the writ petitioner, the impugned charge memo has been issued under Rule 9(B) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the charge itself is untenable. The charges in relation to the contradictions made by the writ petitioner during the deposition before the competent criminal Court of law is not supported by any valid document and therefore, the very constitution of the charge is to be scrapped. It is further contended that the writ petitioner had deposed the truth and the statement based on the documents available and he has not committed any misconduct warranting an action under Rule 9(B) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner solicited the attention of this Court in respect of the observations made by the competent criminal Court of law in a case registered against the public servants under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further urged this Court stating that on a perusal of all the statements deposed by the writ petitioner, he has not committed any such misconduct or offence as stated in the impugned charge memo.