@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashThe original Petitioner filed O.A. No. 3660 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging an order, dated 27.11.1998 passed by the first Respondent Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, wherein and by which, he was dismissed from service. The said order was taken on appeal to the second Respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range and the same was also dismissed on 8.2.1999. A further appeal to the third Respondent Inspector General of Police, Chennai was also rejected by an order dated 25.11.1999. It is these three orders which are under challenge before the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal admitted the O.A on 14.6.2001. On notice from the Tribunal, the first Respondent has filed a reply affidavit, dated 7.3.2002. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 1215 of 2007. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original Petitioner had unfortunately passed away on 24.7.2008 and that his legal heirs have come on record, which was ordered by this Court on 29.6.2011.
3. It is seen from the records that the Petitioner was appointed as a Grade II police constable on 25.5.1988 and he was attached to Armed Reserve. He was sent on duty to escort the then Chief Minister of Puducherry on 2.9.1994 along with one A. Peroyanayagam, Sub Inspector of Police. During the course of his duty, he met one M. Durairaj along with his two other friends around 7.00 a.m. The Petitioner reported back to the Armed Reserve in the early morning on 3.9.1994 around 5.00 a.m. But he was missing and found absent for the whole day in the Armed Reserve. Therefore, he was marked absent on 3.9.1994 by the duty Sub Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, Villupuram. On 3.9.1994 around 8.30 a.m., the petitoner along with one Baskaran of Elandurai went in a bicycle in Mafti as preplanned.He met one Sekar and Durairaj of Panamalaipet and also another M. Durairaj, S/o. Mayava Gounder. The Petitioner and his friend had enquired the said Durairaj, S/o. Mayava Gounder about the bag that he was carrying and questioned him as to whether he was carrying any counterfeit currency.They also directed him to go to the police station. The Petitioner brought the said Durairaj, S/o. Mayava Gounder and another Durairaj to Villupuram West Police station. While he made them to wait outside the station, he went inside. He later informed them that the place of occurrence was in the Town police station limits and asked them to go to the Villupuram Town police station and that he would come there in the cycle. He sent all persons including Durairaj in a bus. Sekar and Durairaj of Panampet and Baskaran had met the Petitioner in the bus stand. The Petitioner received Rs. 1000/- out of Rs. 9000/- received from Durairaj, S/o. Mayava Gounder on the false pretext of doubling the currency as his share and had absconded from the place. He had kept the money received as his share in his room and went on bund bust duty on 4.9.1994 and returned to Armed Reserve unit on the same night.
4. On 5.9.1994 in the early hours, he was arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town and that a criminal case was registered against him in Crime No. 651 of 1994 for the offence under Sections 420 and 109 IPC. The amount of Rs. 1000/- received by him as his share was also seized along with the cycle and the same was entered in the mahazar. Consequent upon the registration of the criminal case, the Petitioner was placed under suspension on 6.9.1994. The criminal case registered against him was tried before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Villupuram in C.C. No. 745 of 1995. The learned Judicial Magistrate, by his judgment dated 12.7.1999 had acquitted the Petitioner by granting benefit of doubt. The witnesses of the prosecution had turned hostile during trial. Even before the conclusion of the criminal case, a charge memo was framed against the Petitioner under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules for his in disciplinary conduct in having cheated one M. Durairaj, S/o. Mayava Gounder of K. Pillur village and having involved himself in the criminal case in Villupuram Town Police Station Crime No. 651 of 1994 under Sections 420 and 109 IPC.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve was appointed as an Enquiry Officer.He had conducted the enquiry. Based on the enquiry, he found the charges against the Petitioner proved. On the basis of the proved minutes, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. Therefore, his successive appeal and review were rejected by the appellate authorities as noted already. It was subsequent to the original order of dismissal, the criminal case had ended in acquittal. Therefore, the Petitioner sent a representation to the third Respondent stating that in view of the acquittal by the criminal court, his case should be considered. But, the third Respondent, by order dated 25.11.1999 held that the review petition cannot be entertained. In the departmental enquiry, 13 witnesses were examined. Even the complainant before the criminal court was examined as P.W.5. It was found that P.W.10, Subramanian had admitted that he had signed Ex.P.11 and also filed Exs.P.14 and P.15 during oral enquiry. P.W.10 and P.W.11 had also affixed their signatures in the prosecution document in Ex.P.11. It was on analysis of all these documents, the Petitioner was found guilty of charges.
6. It must be noted that there was no legal bar for the department proceeding in the departmental enquiry even while the criminal trial was on. The Petitioner never moved the court for stalling the said proceedings. On the other hand, he had participated in the enquiry. Therefore, he cannot now claim any prejudice on account of conducting domestic enquiry. It must also be noted that the subsequent acquittal can have no bearing on the earlier enquiry which had ended in punishment. The Petitioner was unable to dislodge the charges. Even the complainant was examined as P.W.5. The Respondents have also taken note of all relevant circumstances. Merely because the complainant in his statement had referred to one person with 29 years old with fair complexion by itself cannot invalidate the evidence given by him.
7. The counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in
