@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M.M. Sundresh, J.@mdashThe petitioner herein was enlisted as Grade-II Police Constable on 19.12.1988. Thereafter, he was upgraded as Head Constable on 21.06.2009. He served in Highway Patrol at Mallur Police Station, Salem District, from 05.07.2012 to 15.10.2012. While he was serving in High Way Patrol at Mallur, he has assaulted one Lakshmanan and his wife Priya on 14.10.2012 and parked the two wheeler seized during vehicle check in a private vehicle stand. Charges have been framed against him. After conducting an enquiry, the disciplinary authority found that the charges levelled against him are proved. The petitioner filed statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority concurred with the views of the Disciplinary Authority both on the nature of the charges as well as the punishment imposed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that abdicating the duty imposed under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1955(hereinafter referred to as ''The Act''), the Appellate Authority passed a cryptic order. The reasoning is the sole and heart beat of the order having suffered consequences. The Appellate Authority being a statutory functionary, ought to have acted in accordance with the Rule 6 of the Rules. He merely placed the entire onus on the petitioner by accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Authority. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has made reliance upon the judgments of this Court in
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, based upon the counter affidavit, submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the finding of the Enquiry Officer, no interference is required.
4. In a writ of certiorari, the Court is concerned with the decision making process rather than the decision. Considering the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1955, this Court in
"11. The grievance of the petitioner that the appellate authority and the reviewing authority have not stated any reasons and passed non-speaking orders is also well founded as the said orders are not in terms of Rules 6 and 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Similar rule, viz., Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, having not been followed, Division Bench of this Court in the decisions reported in
Following the said decision, the order impugned is hereby set aside and consequently, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to decide the appeal afresh on merits and in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
