AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—Heard both sides. The petitioner is a Grade II Police Constable. He was issued with a charge memo dated 18.12.2007 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (D & A) Rules in PR No. 26/2007 containing two charges.
The first charge is that on 02.06.2007, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner on the file of P1 Puliyanthope Police Station in Crime No. 404/2007 under Sections 427, 294(b) of IPC r/w Section 75 Clause (1)B of City Police Act. The second charge is that he failed to report at the headquarters of the Battalion immediately, after receiving the suspension order dated 02.06.2007 on 03.06.2007 and absented himself without any intimation or permission from 03.06.2007 to 12.06.2007 i.e. for 10 days.
An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent, by an order dated 09.04.2008 removed the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Mercy Petition to the second respondent u/s 15(A)(1)(ii) of TNPSS (D & A) Rules and the same was dismissed by an order dated 17.11.2009. The petitioner again preferred a memorial to the third respondent on 06.01.2010 and the same was rejected by the third respondent in G.O.(2D) No. 331 Home Department, dated 30.06.2010. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid orders.
A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents refuting the allegations.
The first charge is that the petitioner involved in a criminal case. I am not able to understand as to how this would constitute a misconduct. If a government employee is involved in a criminal case, he could be placed under suspension pending the outcome of the criminal case. But the same cannot be made as a charge. In this case, the charge itself is that he involved in a criminal case. The criminal case also ended in acquittal on 06.07.2009 and the same is not in dispute.
Further I had an occasion to consider a similar issue in W.P. No. 7470 of 2007 dated 29.09.2009 [C. Francis v. The Commandant, T.N. Special Police V Battalion] wherein, I have held that involvement in a criminal case cannot be made as a charge.
The second charge is that he did not report for duty from 03.06.2007 to 12.06.2007 i.e. for ten days. But he was placed under suspension by an order dated 02.06.2007. In fact the second charge itself states that he was placed under suspension by an order dated 02.06.2007. After he was placed under suspension by an order dated 02.06.2007, I fail to understand as to how he could be charged that he was unauthorisedly absent for duty from 03.06.2007 to 12.06.2007.
The aforesaid relevant facts were not considered by any one of the authorities. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of eight weeks with all benefits including wages for the period of non-employment. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.